You lefties believe that if AR15s went away the US would be a safer place?
If Camrl to gets elected she has stated she will, by executive order institute a mandatory buyback of assualt rifles.
Why do you lefties support this?
Serious question
When looking to purchase a gun you should always find a gun of the proper caliber, size and weight that when you fire the gun you maintain total and complete control of that gun, trigger pull after trigger pull……..AKA gun control
2024 = Trump270+
I stick more to Berettas for my big ass hands.
And stop being a dolt Lost. An XO does not supersede the constitution so it aint happening and of course you provide no link.
you cannot figure out it is another way of saying
kuntmala
kamaliar
scamala
First you ask about gun control in the subject. But them you ramble about the possible mandatory buyback of assault rifles. Two different things.
First, gun control is not about taking guns away from people. It's about doing our best to make sure they are not in the hands of the wrong people and there are protective measures. No one on either side wants school shootings, little kids finding guns and accidently shooting someone, and other uneccessary shootings of innocent people. I have no issue with someone who is using a gun properly for hunting or having it to protect themselves.
As for the buyback on assault rifles, that's because you don't need an assault rifle to hunt or protect yourself. There are other gun types for this need. An assault rifle is perfect for a mass shooting though. Get a clue.
There is no physical distinction between a rifle and an "assault rifle". It's a propaganda term.
.
Semi-automatic IS useful in self-defense. The ability to fire more than once quickly is vital since there is a strong likelihood of not even hitting your attacker on the first shot, so timely additional shots are vital.
.
Large magazines are also vital since you may have more than one attacker and you may have difficulty hitting them and they may not stop after being hit with the first shot.
.
Rifles are vital in self defense because they are easier to aim, which of course is both a defense benefit and hitting the target is better for the safety of others nearby than missed shots.
.
Having just listed ALL the significant properties of "assault rifles" you can see there is no meaningful difference between a rifle and an "assault rifle" and the above features are vitally important in a defense role.
Show me all the times someone legitimately used and needed a semi automatic for self defense. In most cases they were used at close range. Unless they mentally changed in learning how to shot straight, they didn’t need them. Your argument is the typical one used, but it’s baseless. Guess how many were used in mass shootings. More than 25% of the time. Because you know what, they are great for taking out multiple people in a short time.
NOT every rifle is a semi-automatic. The word "rifle" refers to a long gun with a rifled bore. That's IT. And a basic rifle is BOLT ACTION and can't be used even in semi-automatic form.
Fester knows NOTHING about weapons and is a complete IDIOT.
Define "legitimately." If it is just a test of your opinion, then it's a fool's errand. If it is based on lack of convictions for murder, then Kyle Rittenhouse usage is a "legitimate" example of use of an AR-15 to defend himself, as he was found "not guilty" and is therefore and forever presumed innocent as a matter of law.
You seem to not comprehend my point. Not being found guilty simply means the person using it likely was doing so in self defense. On average, there are 5 of these per year. And, TBH, if this was the only way they were used we would not be having this debate as I wouldn't mind it as much. What I am saying is did they really need it vs. another gun type. Kyle Rittenhouse is the perfect example. He used it from up close. Unless he is untrained and/or incompent, he did not need an AR-15. This is my point. If the rationale is one's right to protect themselves, the question to answer is not if they used it to protect themselves or not. The question is did they need it or were other gun types that are not perfect for mass shootings good enough for their protection needs. My arguement stands that there are enough other gun types that anyone with proper training and a decent level of compentency can use them to meet their needs.
“Not being found guilty simply means the person using it likely was doing so in self defense.”
No, it doesn’t. States vary in how they handle self-defense cases, but there are standard legal criteria. There’s the reasonable man doctrine. There’s the being attacked by many people principle. There’s castle doctrine. Standard self defense claims have to be proven. Legally they work as a guilty plea. There’s many other reasons why a homicide charge wouldn’t stick that’s unrelated to self defense.
“On average, there are 5 of these per year.”
No one in the criminology field makes anything close to such a claim. The total number of DSU’s range from 700,000 to 1.5 million a year last I checked.
“Kyle Rittenhouse is the perfect example. He used it from up close. Unless he is untrained and/or incompent, he did not need an AR-15. This is my point.”
What Rittenhouse did was textbook self defense. He also fired with pinpoint accuracy while 1) being in a crowd and 2) while being attacked. Accuracy that could not likely have been achieved without the use of a light weight small caliber rifle like an AR-15.
“The question is did they need it or were other gun types that are not perfect for mass shootings good enough for their protection needs.”
Again, what technical aspect of an AR-15 makes it the perfect weapon to use in a mass shooting?
Okay, you broke it down, and I will break it down. And, you debated and kept it respectful, so I wll too. I appreciate respectful debate.
Just to be clear, I was not suggesting self defense as defined by law. I was suggesting that it's the likely situation. Also, key word is likely. I am aware it's not the only reason. But it's much harder to be proven innocent if you shot someone unprovoked and do not claim you felt any threat whatsoever. Using the reasonable man doctrine for example, one would likely not say it's reasonable to just shoot someone because you think they look funny. They would say it's reasonable because you felt they were a threat. This might not by law standards be defined as self defense, but it's pretty much self defense in praticality.
Not sure you understand the average of 5 per year. That is in fact the average number of self defense situations, as defined by people either not charged or found innocent in the court of law, who killed someone using an AR-15 to defend themselves. To be even more clear, this is in the US. We are not even close to having data from the rest of the world. Where are you getting 750,000 to 1.5 million, or is it that you misunderstood what I was saying?
I disagree that someone who knows how to use guns needs an AR-15 to shoot accurately. That is suggestion that all other legal guns are inferior and only the AR-15 would do the job. BS.
What makes it good for mass shooting? Maybe the fact that it can release 400 rounds per minute. Maybe the fact that it can reach speeds of up to six football fields. Holly shit you kidding me with this question? You can fuck up a lot of people with these killing machines.
But they’re really not.
“But it's much harder to be proven innocent if you shot someone unprovoked and do not claim you felt any threat whatsoever.”
You’ll be amazed by how good forensic science is these days. They can piece together all kinds of things, from how far away a person was shot, to the angle to all kinds of things. These details are used to piece together self defense from murder. Many a murderer have claimed self defense to try to get away with it and still gone to jail.
Some states have a stand your ground provision, which helps to modernize legal standards. Castle doctrine isn’t even in the law, it’s just there by court precedent dating back from before the ratification of the Constitution. My home state doesn’t have a stand your ground law. So suppose someone is trying to break into my house, can I shoot in self defense? Yes. Them entering my home means by default they intend to harm me. But what if they’re trying to break into my vehicle and I’m in the house? Then no, I can’t. What if a loved one is in the vehicle at the time? Then yes, I can. What if 3 guys are trying to best me up but they’re all shorter than me? Run through any scenario you can imagine, and there’s precedent on this. In firearm self defense, if someone is trying to hurt you you can shoot. Once they’re on the ground and no longer a threat you can’t shoot.
“That is in fact the average number of self defense situations, as defined by people either not charged or found innocent in the court of law, who killed someone using an AR-15 to defend themselves.”
Most DSU’s never make it to court. Most prevent a crime from happening. Think of a cop pulling out a gun and telling someone to get on the ground. No bullets fired. But the gun was still used in self defense.
“Where are you getting 750,000 to 1.5 million, or is it that you misunderstood what I was saying?”
This is from all firearms combined.
“I disagree that someone who knows how to use guns needs an AR-15 to shoot accurately.”
No, they don’t. But you do understand that rifles are way more accurate than handguns, right? You understand that shooting in a crowd is extremely difficult because a bullet could go through someone and hit a target behind them, right? So if you had a firearm that shot a round that didn’t do this it would be safer, wouldn’t it? And if a bullet causes an entry wound and not an exit wound then the person who got shot is far less likely to bleed to death, which is how most gun shot victims die. Yeh, if I was in Rittenhouse’s shoes I’d say the very best weapon he could have had was an AR-15.
“What makes it good for mass shooting? Maybe the fact that it can release 400 rounds per minute. Maybe the fact that it can reach speeds of up to six football fields.”
400 rounds a minute? Where the hell are you getting this from? That’s 6.6 bullets a second. Can you wiggle your index finger that fast? I can’t. And I can play a pretty mean guitar solo.
Speeds of up to 6 football fields?!? 😳 Zeel. Buddy. I know I rag on you a lot but c’mon man. 6 football fields is a measure of distance, not speed. Almost all bullets go fast enough to break the sound barrier. That’s one of the reasons why gun fire is so EXTREMELY loud. They do make subsonic ammo that’s decided to go slower than the sound barrier. I much prefer them because wearing hearing protection is a PITA. Even when using a silencer (they’re actually called supressors) gun fire is still loud unless using subsonic ammo.
They're scary because they are the preferred choice of weapons for mass shooters. I can see why you think they are good for a number of things. Likely, these mass shooters do as well. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying all rifles. Just semi automatic. Not sure why you specifically need a semi automatic. I don't see the need to be able to quickly shoot multiple bullets.
So, clearly, you and I were talking about something different with the numer of AR-15's used for self defense. If no bullet was fired, you can very easily argue many other guns on the market would have the same impact. If the argument is about something they do better, well that only would matter when they are actually used. Not held and pointed. Actually trigger pulled and shot. And, in those cases, I'm saying I highly doubt other guns, or other rifles, could not have done just as good of a job.
I will clarify. 400 rounds per minute would require a bump stock modification. Without one, you're looking more at 60 rounds per minute. Why on earth is that many bullets, even 60, needed for one minute?
Sorry, on the football fields. I honestly meant distance. Speed was a typo. And yes almost all bullets go fast. But some go faster, and the AR-15 is one of the faster bullets out there. Again, I question the need for what it can do and feel would be better off without them.
“They're scary because they are the preferred choice of weapons for mass shooters.”
Not really. That’s media hype. Vast majority of all shootings, even mass shootings are handguns. FBI data confirms this. Google “FBI expanded homicide data table 8”. If that’s the wrong table let me know, this is from memory and I might habe mixed it up.
“Again, to be clear, I'm not saying all rifles. Just semi automatic. Not sure why you specifically need a semi automatic.”
While old timey rifles are bolt action, and bolt action rifles are the most accurate for very long distances, many common hunting rifles are semi-auto. They’re not tactical weapons like an AR. They just look like a hunting rifle, but they’re semi-auto. Below is a picture of a .308 hunting rifle that’s semi-auto. BTW, .308 ammo is way more powerful and more deadly than the .223 ammo used by an AR-15.
“And, in those cases, I'm saying I highly doubt other guns, or other rifles, could not have done just as good of a job.”
Again, wrong. AR-15’s do carry an intimidation factor, thanks mostly to the media. Back in the day, shotguns did this, but I have seen quite a few news stories where criminals ran away from a house they were breaking into because the 15 year old daughter who was home alone pointed an AR-15 at the would-be burglars.
“I will clarify. 400 rounds per minute would require a bump stock modification. Without one, you're looking more at 60 rounds per minute. Why on earth is that many bullets, even 60, needed for one minute?”
There’s ways to shoot faster without bump stocks. Many people on the left just believe what they see on TV. But that’s make believe. In real life no one wants to shoot a zillion rounds a minute because all the bullets would miss, you’d run out of ammo and damage or destroy your firearm. Even in the military soldiers don’t do this. The military version of the AR (not available to the civilian market) can shoot 3 round bursts, and soldier did this in Nam while firing from helicopters. But on the ground there’s no point. It’s just wasting bullets.
“Sorry, on the football fields. I honestly meant distance. Speed was a typo. And yes almost all bullets go fast. But some go faster, and the AR-15 is one of the faster bullets out there. Again, I question the need for what it can do and feel would be better off without them.”
Muzzle velocity is determined by physics. How much gun powder is behind the bullet, and the weight of the bullet. Low weight and a lot of powder makes for a faster bullet. All rifle rounds have a ton more gun powder behind them than handgun rounds. Most standard rifle rounds go around the same range of speeds. Bullet weights are measured in grains, and the same caliber can come in various grain weights. Shooters use this less for controlling speed and more for controlling the amount of kickback a gun has when fired.
Here’s a list of some of the fastest rifle rounds. The .223 doesn’t make the cut.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/guns/the-fastest-rifle-cartridges
You're trying to reason or explain logic to a guy that has none of either. He knows everything. That's why he "attempts" to talk down on everyone here.
He's a big man behind that keyboard.
When all you have left is bitching and moaning insults, you have clearly run dry.
Which is why I rarely post here anymore. All they have are grievances, hate, and insults. Trying to educate, or even attempt a reasonable debate, is a complete waste of time.
Maybe dry humping is all you do these days😳
No wonder you're angry!
I'm one of the least angry persons there is. I'm not angry at you. I am laughing at your simple mindness.
Oh.... contrair mofrair
You are very angry and argumentative for anyone who doesn't believe your ideals. That's why you spend so long writing a novel back to willy each time. You angry as hell!
I knew the minute you started posting here you were either NY or CA. And, I was right. That California logic is a hard sell anywhere outside your world. That's your biggest problem on a political board.
Even your last response sounds like you're mad about it. Simple mindness? Umm ok. Works for me. Maybe you are right. I don't make things complicated.
We all know zeel4cock is never angry but is very calm, serene, and in bliss
when he has a …. (well you know) in his mouth or elsewhere.
But really should swallow before he posts.
OMG.... here we go. The same guy who comes here to act far superior than anyone else with every post, if they don't agree with his current California logic, coming in with the same ol argument.
Could we not say the same thing right back to you?
"Your argument is the typical one used, but it’s baseless."
Give me a frigging break .....this guy.
Why don't we get rid of all automobiles. ALL of them!! Then we will eliminate drunk drivers. I don't know how you'll get to work or go anywhere else for that matter but by God we showed those criminals huh....
That's "zeel" logic all day long.
I urge you to watch the attached clip of a NC man's 3 min speech at city council meeting regarding gun control. This guy gets it. This is only 3 min so you can surely take the time to watch it.
You literally spent the first 3 paragraphs adding zero substance to this conversation. At least Fester tried to stick to making a point. You just come in here and whine and moan like a pathetic drunk. How many beers you popping back every night? 10? 12? 15? I mean seriously, this is mostly a bitchy rant about a bunch of nonsense that makes no counterpoint. You're just complaining about what I said.
But okay then there is the last paragraph where you try. That could have been how you started, but no you prefered to moan and groan. First off, he is not the majority, he just says he is. BS. Then he rambles about taking the guns away. NO WAY IS TAKING THEM AWAY IDIOT. He starts by talking about hunting and sporting rifles. Those are not AR-15 semi automatic weapons. I have no issues with those guns other than wanting to make sure the person owning them is properally trained and doesn't have a history of mental health issues and/or criminal use of weapons. If they are law abiding and they are mentally sound, they sould be allowed these type of weapons. Then he rambles about an AR-15 not being a military weapon. That is not the point. The point is why it is needed for personal use. I addressed this already.
Now put your beers down and try for a second to understand the point I am making. I am not saying you have to agree. You are entitled to your opinion. But if you're going to whine about my choice of words and say stupid things like getting rid of all cars, don't bother. That's just bitching and adds nothing to the conversation. But if you want to make some valid counterpoints, go for it. I'm open to reasonable debate.
I expected a bunch of long rambling nothing as usual from the boards know it all. Instead of trying to tell others how to write, take care of your own beforehand
First of all........
And then
First of all.....again.....
Get a life dude. You obviously don't have one now.
More bitching about me and no point to make about the actual argument. Why is this? Because you have none. GTFO.
I can't argue with a complete dumb ass. And you are definitely that.
What the difference between a single action and double action revolver? What percentage of pistols made today are semi-auto? What does semi-auto even mean? When you pull the trigger on a semi-auto fire arm how many bullets come out?
In your subject line you say “2 questions” and you label both “first” failed grade school arithmetic I see.
Also neither in the form of a question ….grade school dropout I see.
If you think an AR style gun/rifle sold in gun stores throughout the US is and assault rifle/weapon you are wrong.
By most definitions an assault rifle/weapon is one that has a selector switch that the shooter can select either semi-automatic or full automatic ( some a third position for three round burst).
Now go look up the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic.
Full automatic weapons of any type are illegal to sell or to be used by civilians.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle
according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, an assault rifle is a selective-fire weapon that can fire both semi-automatic and fully automatic rounds. Selective fire means the shooter can choose between the two modes.
In semi-automatic mode, the gun fires once for each trigger pull. In fully automatic mode, the gun continues to fire until the trigger is released. Some assault rifles also have a three-shot-burst mode.
The U.S. Army defines an assault rifle as a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate-power cartridge. Assault rifles are shoulder-fired, rapid-fire, magazine-fed weapons that were first mass-produced during World War II. The German StG 44 was the first assault rifle to see widespread use.
However, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes used to describe a wide range of firearms used by civilians. Some say that the term "assault weapon" is used to mischaracterize semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15, which only fire one round per trigger pull. Others say that assault weapons are high-powered semi-automatic firearms that can fire rounds with up to four times the muzzle velocity of a handgun. These rounds can cause more damage to the human body, and semi-automatic weapons can load and fire faster than manually operated firearms. When combined with high-capacity magazines, they allow the shooter to fire more rounds quickly without reloading.
As for hunting with an AR style riffle.
http://www.michiganoutofdoors.com/do-you-need-an-ar-15-to-hunt-deer/
http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/editorial/ar-style-rifles-deer-hunting/370094#replay
http://www.huntstand.com/fieldnotes/choosing-an-ar-15-for-deer-hunting/
“First, gun control is not about taking guns away from people.”
Yes it is.
“No one on either side wants school shootings”
Ban SSRI’s and they’ll stop.
“As for the buyback on assault rifles, that's because you don't need an assault rifle to hunt or protect yourself.”
And you don’t need to keep talking, so let’s ignore your 1st Amendment rights, and shut the fuck up.
“There are other gun types for this need.”
None of which you’re aware of. The Founders didn’t write the 2nd Amendment because the deer were coming.
“An assault rifle is perfect for a mass shooting though. Get a clue.”
Is it? What particular aspect of an “assault rifle” makes it perfect for a mass shooting? Be specific. What makes an AR-15 better for a mass shooting than say a 1911? Or a Glock 19? Or an AR-50? Or a Colt Python? Or a Beretta M9? Or a Mossberg 940? Or a Ruger LCP?
Additional question, when you pull the trigger on an AR-15, how many bullets come out? When you pull the trigger on a 1911 or Glock 19 or Beretta M9 or a Mossberg 940 how many bullets come out?
One final question, when one of the worst mass shootings happened at Virginia Tech, what weapons were used? If you look at all homicides by all firearms, what percentage of them are long guns (rifles)?
I support some restrictions but not a ban. Owners should have had Military training in one of the service branches on how to properly use a high-powered weapon like this, or else condition the sale of the assault rifles on completion of a training and safety course at a government-licensed gun range.
IMO, all gun ownership should involve training and passing a test. You wouldn’t give a driver’s license to someone who can’t pass a written and driving test. Why give a gun to someone who cannot do the same? Now some states already do this, but many do not. I don’t quite understand why everyone outside of the gun companies who want to sell more guns wouldn’t want this as a prerequisite to getting a gun license.
You need to alter the Constitution. You don't need "training" to exercise your 1rst amendment right to free speech. As the SCOTUS similarly concluded, the right to bear arms is not a secondary right and therefore there is no "test" needed to exercise it. Whether you think this specific line of inquiry is wrong, be advised that it was explicitly raised in the SCOUTS decision. It's is now the law of the land. If you are a member of "the people" you have a right to bear arms. The court ruled that denial of such a right must be based on history and tradition of such restrictions and the time period for such history is circa the time of the adoption of the bill of rights. Not the 20th century.
Lester really hit the nail on the head in the post above.
The “need” argument discussed further upthread gets negated because it doesn’t pass constitutional scrutiny.
Another problem with the government imposing training requirements is that it becomes a sort of poll tax that ends up making only the wealthy and elite to have access to firearms. Some states have used increasing ownership costs on gun owners by trying to impose exorbitant taxes on ammunition. This also prices out the poor and lower middle class, while at the same time creating the conditions for a black market for ammunition.
So basically you don't care if a pyschotic imbecile has guns because it is his constitutional right? Maybe you should read the contitution, or at least the 2nd Amendment if you are going to site it. Here's a little something:
"Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding 'the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill' or restrictions on 'the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons'."
You notice that felons and mentally ill don't get this right? How do you think we are supposed to figure out who these people are? You also noticed that it does not include dangerous and unusual weapons? Well, what are these types of weapons? This part is somewhat subjective and left for debate. You can debate and pass laws to attemtp to calrify this piece. So, an AR-15 can or cannot be included. This is open for debate.
But okay, you are also focused on the training part. Well guess what, nothing in the words "right to bear arms" says you cannot require proper training to get a gun license. In fact, as I previously stated, some states already do require it. Not needing training is just your opinion. It is not written law. You have chose to believe it is implied and therefore it is your constitutional right. Your only right is the right to bear arms. States have the authority to create a process to protect everyone, which is the gun control debate. Some, like you, believe that any control is taking away your constitutional right. Some, like me, do not believe this is the case. I believe that if a process is created that allows anyone who meets said criteria to get a gun, than that right is still being upheld. I do not believe having protections is wrong because of the right to bear arms.
You know nothing about guns, Zeel. Nothing. You have zero training. The people who buy guns do have training. Most of them have been using guns for decades. What gun license are you referring to? There is no such thing as a gun license. There’s concealed carry permits. The vast majority of all gun owners have concealed carry permits. Getting one requires training. Gun owners like having them because it allows you to cross (some) state lines with a gun. It also makes it easier to buy guns privately like at gun shows because to get a concealed carry license you have to pass a background check. This gives sellers at gun shows reassurance that they’re not selling to a criminal. BTW, only 2% of criminals got their guns from gun shows. The vast majority buy them on the street or get a gun from a friend.
Willy - Gun License Don't Exist
Me - Click on the link below if you want to apply for one
Willy - But they don't exist and you know nothing about guns
Me - Did you click the link?
Willy - No because I know it's not true and I ignore proof
Okay Willy, settle down, because you got something right. A gun license is for those selling them. You are right, for people who own guns a permit is what they need. But you really had to get your panties in a bunch because I called it a license? The details you get caught up in have nothing to do with the actual debate. Calm down and focus.
Every gun owner in the country knows what an FFL is. Suppose I buy a gun online from a store in Montana while I live in Virginia. Can they just ship to gun to me? Nope. The seller has to ship it to an FFL in Montana, which then has to ship to an FFL in Virginia before I can pick it up and bring it home. Typically gun stores have an FFL license to avoid the hassle.
So you bringing this up was pointless.
So you were talking about a permit. To have a gun. Gotcha. That permit is called the 2nd Amendment. There is no permit to have a gun. Nor do you have to register a gun. I believe the only exceptions are the state of Colorado and Hawaii.
What you’re mixing up is a conceal carry license. Mind you, most states allow you to open carry with no license at all. I don’t advocate open carry unless you’re out in the sticks.
The fact is this conversation is shifted so far off topic and that is because you get caught up in the details that have nothing to do with the debate. I have not once pretended to be an expert on guns or gun ownership. I have my opinions on who should own them, and the law does support not allowing them in the hands of the mentally ill or those with past criminal records, albeit not just any criminal records. This was covered already.
We clearly disagree on the need for AR-15s. That's fine. We don't have to agree. We clearly disagree on the idea that people should be trained if they are going to be allowed to use guns. And, TBH, I don't care if they are trained by their dad or buddy. It's about passing a test similar to what is required for someone to be allowed to drive a car. And again, us disagreeing is fine. I do not need to be a gun owner or an expert to have an opinion on these things.
But this current debate over a license vs. a permit vs. conceal carry license, it's not really part of my debate or point. You've disapeared in the woods on this one.
You should take a gun safety course. Yes, even if you don’t own a gun and don’t plan to ever own one. Suppose you’re at a party or you find yourself in a situation where you need to safely handle one? Wouldn’t you want to know how to clear the gun of bullets safely without shooting your foot off?
The main thing the NRA does is offer gun safety training. They have courses all the time. If you’re opposed to them on ideological grounds check with your local police or sheriffs department.
If guns seem like they’re too much, try an archery club. Archery is super fun, target practice is great way to spend a sunny afternoon. Plus it’s a good way to get outdoors and interact with nature.
and you, sir, are way, way off on many points.
My knowledge -I personally know nothing about guns. My bias- hate the Second Amendment.
But let’s go with what has been litigated rather than my bias, or the NRA or Brady talking points.
“They're scary because they are the preferred choice of weapons for mass shooters.”
Willy - Not really. That’s media hype. Vast majority of all shootings, even mass shootings are handguns. FBI data confirms this.
Dead wrong. Not media hype- facts. Take out domestic shooting and this is not even debatable. Zeel is almost quoting the law. Said the Fourth Circuit last week in upholding Maryland’s ban on statutory assault weapons:
“AR-15s are disproportionately used in mass shootings: one recent examination found that although AR-platform rifles constituted about 5% of the firearms in the United States, they were used in 25% of mass shootings. Rupp, 2024 WL 1142061, at *11. Moreover, in a grim testament to the gun's deadliness, mass shootings are over 60% more deadly when an AR-15 or similar assault rifle is used. See id. ("[O]ver the past ten years, there have been 12.9 fatalities per shooting when an assault rifle is used in a mass shooting, as opposed to 7.8 fatalities per shooting where an assault rifle is not used."). Four of every five "mass shootings that resulted in more than 24 deaths involved the use of assault rifles," id., as did every single mass shooting involving more than 40 deaths, see The Violence Project, Mass Shooter Database (database updated Jan. 2024). In short, the AR-15 and other assault rifles are the preferred weapons for those bent on wreaking death and destruction upon innocent civilians. "Their utility for mass killing has made the AR-15 and similar assault rifles the most popular arms for terrorist attacks in the United States..."
Willy- What particular aspect of an “assault rifle” makes it perfect for a mass shooting?
Extraordinary lethality, over- penetration, large capacity magazines, combat functional features – the opinion goes on and on about this.
Willy - “There is no such thing as a gun license.”
Better not try that in New York when you are felony arrested for not having a gun license:
“It is a crime in New York to possess "any firearm" without a license, whether inside or outside the home, punishable by up to four years in prison or a $5,000 fine for a felony offense, and one year in prison or a $1,000 fine for a misdemeanor. See N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §§ 265.01–b (West 2017), 261.01(1) (West Cum. Supp. 2022), 70.00(2)(e) and (3)(b), 80.00(1)(a) (West 2021), 70.15(1), 80.05(1). Meanwhile, possessing a loaded firearm outside one's home or place of business without a license is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. §§ 265.03(3) (West 2017), 70.00(2)(c) and (3)(b), 80.00(1)(a).
A license applicant who wants to possess a firearm at home (or in his place of business) must convince a "licensing officer"—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that, among other things, he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that "no good cause exists for the denial of the license." §§ 400.00(1)(a)–(n) (West Cum. Supp. 2022). If he wants to carry a firearm outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to "have and carry" a concealed "pistol or revolver." § 400.00(2)(f ). “
Are assault weapons commonly bought for self defense? Yes, by idiots like Alex Jones and many NRA members. Are they actually used for self defense - rarely according to the statistics in this case.
SCOTUS denied cert on the Illinois assault weapon ban last month. But there are two votes to include assault weapons within the Second Amendment c they are commonly bought for self -defense. Let’s hope Kamala wins and we don’t have to see Trump replace Sonia with Aileen Cannon. But, until that happens, assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.
1) You CAN own a shotgun or bolt-action rifle without a permit.
2) Since 2022 you must have a permit to purchase an AR and you must be at least 21.
3) ANY pistol must be licensed. It is true, as you stated, that character references are required. And the permit is ONLY for a specific pistol or pistols. Mine, for example, lists the name and serial number of the pistol I own.
that would not be covered by the quote
I provided which is from the 2022 SCOTUS opinion in Bruen which struck the public carry license requirement that the applicant demonstrate a special need for self defense. But the quote is provided to convince Willy that his notion that
“There is no such thing as a gun license” is certainly wrong as far as New York is concerned.
I certainly have not looked at the laws myself.
But that is how Justice Thomas described the NY license regime as of that date.
Because you also quoted a line that is incorrect. "It is a crime in New York to possess "any firearm" without a license" That is just flat-out wrong. It has NEVER been a crime to own a shotgun or a bolt-action rifle. Not before 2022 and not after.
…is prohibited from any regulation at all?
Go look it up and report back to the class.
When he does that, he is referring to firearms as defined in the statute, not the ordinary meaning of “firearm.” Since you seem interested, I looked it up and we see it depends on the length of the shotgun or rifle
3. "Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e) an assault weapon; or (f) any other weapon that is not otherwise defined in this section containing any component that provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate any fire control component that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a pro...
NY PEN Law 265.00 Definitions (Laws of New York (2024 Edition)). I assume this was on the books when he wrote the opinion in 2022. Unlikely that a S CT justice would make an error like that.
is meant to ban "sawed-off" or concealable long guns. Thus leaving the basic shotgun and bolt-action rifle purchasable without a license. Most shotguns have a 26-28" barrel. Most hunting rifles have a 22-24" barrel.
I realize you know the law better than I could ever hope to, so I will defer to you on some of the finer points, but there's a few things I'd like to point out.
"Dead wrong. Not media hype- facts."
According to the FBI, of the 10,258 firearm homicides committed in 2019, only 364 were by rifles, and that includes all rifle types, the AR-15 being only one of those types. 6,368 were handguns. And additional 3,281 were listed without the firearm being known, but in all likelihood they were mostly handguns. So AR-15s accounted for less than 4% of all firearm homicides.
“AR-15s are disproportionately used in mass shootings: one recent examination found that although AR-platform rifles constituted about 5% of the firearms in the United States, they were used in 25% of mass shootings."
This depends on how mass shootings are calculated. Are they counting news stories or shootings? Are they counting drive bys or not?
"Moreover, in a grim testament to the gun's deadliness, mass shootings are over 60% more deadly when an AR-15 or similar assault rifle is used."
But how? Do they shoot faster than a pistol? Nope. Is it because they have a larger capacity magazine? Nope, extended mags are available to pistols like Glocks. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and injured 17 others using pistols.
"Extraordinary lethality"
Did the US Army adopt the .223/5.56 cartridge because of extraordinary lethality, or because it was just barely big enough to do the job?
http://www.wearethemighty.com/popular/762-to-5-56-rounds/
Here is an image of common rifle rounds. Take note that .223 and 5.56 is just two different names for the same cartridge, and is the standard ammo for a AR-15
"Better not try that in New York when you are felony arrested for not having a gun license"
I thought this got thrown out in 2022.
"Are assault weapons commonly bought for self defense? Yes, by idiots like Alex Jones and many NRA members. Are they actually used for self defense - rarely according to the statistics in this case."
Tell that to Korean shop owners in LA.
"SCOTUS denied cert on the Illinois assault weapon ban last month. But there are two votes to include assault weapons within the Second Amendment c they are commonly bought for self -defense. Let’s hope Kamala wins and we don’t have to see Trump replace Sonia with Aileen Cannon. But, until that happens, assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment."
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not self defense. It's not to hunt. It's to keep a check on the Federal Government. See Federalist #46. The question is not whether this type of gun or that type of gun is protected by the 2nd Amendment. The question is does the government have the power to deprive the People of any firearm. The answer is no.
Willy, help me understand how the LA Korean shop owners could use an AR-15 for self defense
I’ll set the stage for you. A bunch of kids break into the Nike shop in Koreatown Plaza to steal some Air Jordans followed by several homeless looking for food. The Korean shopowners open fire with 50 round large cap magazines to protect their property. They gun down the kids and the homeless with a few quick bursts. Except the 50 rounds don’t stop there. They go right through the kids, right through the store walls, and right through the car doors killing anyone unlucky enough to be caught in traffic on the adjoining street and travel 350 yards killing anyone else in their path.
I’m driving down I 10 on my way to NOBU IN Maibu but even I have to dodge bullets.
Now we have a self defense mass shooting.
OF course AW are illegal in California subject to the status of the latest Second Amendment lawsuits but seriously aren’t these weapons utterly useless in a crowded urban setting for self defense of property?
the heightened firepower of AR-15s "pose[s] a serious risk of 'over-penetration'-that is, [bullets] passing through their intended target and impacting a point beyond it." Capen, 2023 WL 8851005, at *15. For example, AR-15 rounds "can pass through most construction materials, even at ranges of 350 yards," thereby threatening the lives of "bystanders, family members, or other innocent persons well outside the intended target area." Id.; see also Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 127 ("[R]ounds from assault weapons have the ability to easily penetrate most materials used in standard home construction, car doors, and similar materials."). Overpenetration poses a grave risk in the home-"where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute," Heller, 554 U.S. at 628-because firing an AR-15 in close quarters will often put the safety of cohabitants and neighbors in jeopardy, see Worman v. Healey, 922 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 2019).
Bianchi v. Brown, 21-1255 (4th Cir. Aug 06, 2024)
There’s a tradeoff between magazine size and reliability. Standard AR-15 mags are 30 rounds. Years ago I had a firearm that used a 100 round magazine, but it might as well have been 3, because that’s how often it jammed.
A .223 round does not have crazy good penetration. It’s pretty lousy compared to other rifle cartridges. All rifle rounds, whether you’re using it to hunt deer or elk or whatnot, all have far superior penetration than handgun rounds. Bullet proof vests also have a level of protection. Some vests can withstand 22LR rounds, some can stop 9mm, some can stop even larger rounds. A 50BMG round shot from an AR-50 can destroy a small vehicle. A standard 12 gauge shotgun can turn a person’s head into hamburger.
The 9th Circuit just blocked the California law that allowed only one gun purchase every 30 days. There are never ending appeals on this stuff but as of today Californians can buy as many guns as they want.
.
The court nullified the law ruling that the state was unlikely to win on appeal since the law is likely unconstitutional.
In regards to bullet penetration, you may find this interesting.
There's actually a practical distinction that's worth discussing: standard bullets vs. hollow point. The latter are considered inhumane because they cause huge internal damage. However, a hollow point bullet is far less likely to pass through one victim's body, go through a wall and hit someone in the next room. I don't use hollow points but there's actually an argument for them.
Hollowpoints could be considered more humane as they open up after being fired and lose kinetic energy. This prevents the round from leaving the body causing an exit wound. Exit wounds cause most firearm deaths due to blood loss.
Now who wants to see how many Hershey chocolate bars it takes to stop a bullet?
Sorry I couldn't join in the convo because I was fucking. Again. (Saturdays have been good to me lately)
Hey, remember a couple weeks ago TATL when you made it a point not once, .........but twice .....to say to someone else...
What's that you say ALL the time about a pot calling the kettle black?
Jimmy Buffett has a message for you below. Check it out.
-- Modified on 8/18/2024 8:08:58 AM
And then he lied. Again.
He's a dickless wonder. And everyone knows it.
PS: thanks for another link I won't open. Neither will anyone else.
I didn't like my own post limp dick. Someone else did. Because I'm right. Again.....as usual
Soooooooo......Mr Saturday night...and I ain't got nobody, I got some money cause I just got my social security check. How I wish I had someone to talk to...but I have no friends!! 🤣🤣🤣
Oh TATL my puppet. Why do you make this so easy?
Now let's get ready for his repeat words or re-posting what I've already said in 3.......2........1.......GO!!
Not to mention he has no clue where I actually am and can't even correctly read a time code. Thus he is WRONG again on all counts. He never seems to tire of make a fool of himself. It's the one thing he's actually good at. That and repeating everything I say.
So repeat after me....
Well I played him like a fiddle again......this is tooooo easy!!
Oh don't worry TATL we know where you are Mr Saturday night! Time code he says..🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yeah..... on the upper west side! And finally to embarass you and allow you to make an utter fool of yourself again. If I "liked" my own post like you do all the time, wouldn't I have 2 "👍" of those showing?? Genius?
I honestly have no idea what "he" is talking about. Would someone please translate? I don't speak gibberish.
No need to translate good English. "You" continue to look like a fool. I'd say even your fellow lefties are embarrassed for you but many of them are strangers to common sense so that's out.
SPOAT now takes a second title: MEPE.
Most Embarrassing Poster EVER.
Ain’t that right… Cletus😂😂
You lefties believe that if AR15s went away the US would be a safer place?