Joe Biden wants to ban all semi auto firearms

His silly "study" doesn't note what weapons were used before the ban, what weapons were used during the ban, and what weapons were used after the ban. that is why it is worthless. weapons used before the ban that were not affected by the ban (essentially none) don't matter. weapons not affected by the ban used during the ban don't count either nor do ones that were owned during the ban but used after it.

The only way that the study would have validity is if it could prove that semi auto rifles with certain cosmetic features were used in lots of mass shootings before the ban, but then were not used nearly as much during the ban

 

You sure know how to pick those cherries.

Claiming it doesn't make it so.

 

What was the causal effect? The total number of "assault weapons" and AR-15s increased every single year of the ban.

 

The focus of the study was on mass shooting deaths. Assault weapons use in a mass shooting can increase the body count though the total number of mass shootings may remain the same.

Wouldn't a folding stock make a gun easier to conceal and thus use for criminal purposes? I'm not convinced the ban was ineffective though certain parts of it could have been. What about large capacity magazines which would make it easier to shoot more people? If the ban was doing some good then it's better than nothing. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

He is talking about "assault weapons" by which he means semi-auto rifles like the AR (not handguns), but you and I both know he is just throwing red meat for the anti-gun base, and whatever he is talking about has zero chance of passing.

How many threads are you going to open about this?

 

That’s complete and utter BS! Here is a piece of legislation that was passed by the house earlier this year

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text

in this legislation it defines an assault weapon as pretty much anything modern. Doesn’t even have to be semi auto. If it’s got a removable magazine and a pistol grip it’s also an assault weapon. Bolt actions have this combo.

 

so we should not believe what senile joe says-or is your beloved leader too stupid to understand what he is saying. Did it ever occur to you that scumbags like Biden demand banning everything so his loyal minions can claim banning only half of those things is a "reasonable" "common sense" compromise? Joe might be stupid but those who control him are not

 

The Olympic trials had to be moved out of the 1984 games venue in Ontario California because California's assault weapon ban included handguns that were semi auto-had a magazine and had a magazine that was forward of the grip. That is how almost every rapid fire 22 short (now 22 LR) Olympic pistols are designed.

 

The number of "assault weapons" and "post-ban" AR-15s increased after the ban. How did more of these lead do fewer deaths in mass shootings during the ban?

According to Mother Jones, there were four mass shootings with firearms later defined as "assault weapons" in the decade prior to the ban. There were two with such weapons during the ban. Those numbers aren't even high enough to be statistically relevant.

Did this happen in any of the mass shootings prior to or during the ban?

LCMs were still available to be bought and sold. They were all grandfathered, too. What was the causal effect of the ban?

If a law is unconstitutional, I can't support it.

 

The legislation I posted is active legislation as we speak. It still has not been voted on in the senate. One democrat today said they may try adjust it because it doesn’t have the votes to pass the senate. And anyone who thinks joe doesn’t mean more than rifles I would like to remind them that Joe has demonized 9mm as well as of recent. What platform is 9mm dominant in? Semi auto pistols.

 

It's a fact, not a claim. School shootings didn't decrease during the ban. Another fact: the two worst school shootings in United States history didn't involve "assault rifles".

 

Like I said, whatever me wants or says he'll pass has zero chance of getting to his desk, so he is playing politics with it.

You can believe whatever you want, including the belief that he'll be able to pass something, but I do not share that belief. I believe he is playing politics with it.

I don't have a leader, and I already told you I support citizens right to own firearms.

 

No, what you said was he’s not talking about pistols and only guns like the AR which is a complete lie. That legislation already passed the house. They have been sitting on it in hopes of getting more votes to pass it. So don’t think it can’t happen, it’s already half way there. One democrat came out and said they may alter it a bit to get it to pass the 60 vote threshold in the senate. Not sure how he plans on getting 9 republicans to vote for it but there are a few like Romney that would definitely vote for it.

 

Which two are they?

 

Here is the deal-the scumbag Biden and his minions claim they want to ban semi auto rifles for public safety reason- (rather than telling us their real motivations). Well if the Talibiden is correct-that means they should want to ban OTHER firearms that are far more likely to be used in crime and that means handguns. Now if they don't mean handguns, then that means their reasons for attacking only semi auto RIFLES is completely dishonest

 

I know that the Virginia Tech shooting-using two ten shot handguns-was one of the very worst. I think Paddock though-using 12 different rifles-set the record.

 

How do you know? It didn't sound like he was referring to any existing bill, - it sounded like he was telling his loyalists what they wanted to hear.

They were waiting for mid-terms, which they knew would NOT improve their situation.......sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

No, its not. Its at a dead end, its impossible to get 60 votes in the Senate.

No, Not even Romney would vote for it. Its designed to fail, much like 60+ bills to repeal ACA. I don't know if they'd even get all Dems to vote for it.

 

Here is a two part question I never get an honest answer from the anti gun crowd for

1) Why would someone planning a mass shooting obey a law that limits them to a ten round magazine

2) why would a law banning such magazines make the hundreds of millions such magazines-including the thousands upon thousands that the military buys each year, disappear?

 

If a majority in the current house voted for it, are you claiming that there is no possibility that there would be a senate that would also vote for it?

 

Of course its dishonest. They pretend they are doing something about and later they say that they tried to 'fix' it but Republicans stood in the way.

They need 60 votes, but they only have 50. It has no chance whatsoever. They didn't even get all Dems to vote for it in the House

 

UT Austin, 1966 and Virginia Tech, 2007.

 

I am not talking today or tomorrow but in the future. we must prevent this sort of idiocy from passing or better yet, create a judicial barrier to such nonsense ever being considered

 

Las Vegas is the all time record (60)
The orlando shooting at a gay night club I believe is #2 ( 49)

of course we have that guy who firebombed a nightclub and killed even more

 

In the US. In Norway a shooter using a Mini-14 (not classified as an assault weapon) killed close to 70.

And again, outside the US, the all time record for a single attacker happened with a rental truck.

 

there is a substantial amount of evidence that whack jobs try to emulate the "current record" and that is a main reason why AR 15s are used by some of the mass shooters.