What Is An Assault Weapon?

Even though there are over 60 countries in the world(1) that prohibit or severely restrict the private ownership of any firearms yet they all have higher homicide rates than the US.

It only takes common sense to see that if a complete gun ban doesn't work in reducing homicides, anything less is also destined to fail in reducing our homicide rates.

It sounds like you would approve the abolition of the entire 2nd Amendment.

Is that true?


(1) "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings

 

They were evil!! Thats why I'm up to eleven firearms and over "Off the top of my head" 3+ thousand rounds of assorted ammo with twice that amount in components

 

They have been banning drugs for over a century. Haven't made a dent in that underground industry

 

Intersting, especially so because US is #64, but none of the 63 nations before us are fully developed 1st World nations. The first country which compares with us is Belgium, at #112.

Of course it makes a dent. Americans love drugs, including hard drugs, and if they were fully legal, our addiction problem would be much worse.

 

I was a serious USPSA shooter back then-the biggest issue was shooting on gravel or concrete venues where the mags would drop during speed reloads

 

I met a few of those types while I served in the military for 20 years. So much for that "well regulated militia."

 

Got any large rifle primers you don't need?

 

There is not such thing as 100% perfect, but the military IS regulated and if you served 10 yrs, you know that. The military is FAR MORE regulated than what anyone is asking for the civilian gun owners.

https://www.brownells.com/reloading...mpaign=3465274&utm_medium=affiliate&source=ir

 

No, you read my post out of context.

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you but you wrote:

"An assault weapons ban and whatever other measures they can get to limit possession and use of guns."

Are those things that you would like to see happen or things that you expect Congress to address?

Briefly put, what measures do you think would be most effective in addressing America's overall homicide rate?

Thanks,

 

In Terms of Extreme Mass Casualty Events AR-15s have a disproportinate role:
The following is a partial list of when an AR-15-style weapon was used in a mass shooting:

• Feb. 14, 2018: Shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Florida leaves 17 people dead.
• Oct. 1, 2017: The Las Vegas slaughter of 58 people.
• Nov. 5, 2017: The Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting that claimed 26 lives.
• June 12, 2016: The Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., that left 49 dead.
• Dec. 2, 2015: The San Bernardino, Calif., shooting that killed 14 people.
• Dec. 14, 2012: The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that took 27 lives.

 

why do you ignore

1) Virginia Tech 32-small capacity handguns

2) Luby's texas 23 victims-handguns

3) McDonald's shooting-San Ysidro -several different guns 21

4) Charles Whitman-Texas-mainly a bolt action rifle 17

Other uncomfortable facts for those who only pretend they want to ban AR 15s

a) 77% of mass shootings involve handguns

b) the AR 15 rifle has been readily available for private purchase for 60+ years and for the first 30 years of its availability, there were no mass shootings involving that weapon

c) the very similar in function-the MI Carbine-was sold by the hundreds of thousands to private citizens by the US Government starting after the Korean conflict and the number of those used in mass shootings is statistically non existent

d) the constant howls from the anti gun left that AR 15s are the weapon of choice for mass shooters has certainly played a role in nutcases choosing them-combined also with the fact that they are by far the most commonly available centerfire rifle in the USA

 

The militias were around long before the 2A was ratified in 1792 and they were not a part of the US government at the time. This is why the U.S. Supreme Courts over the years have disagreed with your belief the 2A is talking about the National Guard. If that was the case back in 1792 the 2A would have made it clear. The Boys Scouts are a privately owned well regulated militia with the right to set it's own rules under the 1A.

 

That was a reply to another post.

There were a couple of posts in that exchange and reading them would give you the context you missed. I am pro 2nd amendment and I posted earlier stating that of the listed changes the only one that made sense to me was the limit on magazine capacity.

 

Trust me, neither he nor Democrats will depend on a characterization of banned weapons being "an assault weapon". It will instead be a description that covers the variations well.

 

Who said anything about them being part of the government? I specifically said the citizens are the militia.

I didn't say anything about NG. I said (this is the 4th time I say it), the citizens are the militia. At the time armed citizens were a contingency plan for a crises situation. Pretty much a moot point in modern times, but the 2A still stands so we have the right own own guns privately.

Either you don't read the posts, or you are ignoring them in purpose.

 

You keep saying a well regulated militia and that is what many who oppose the 2A say is the National Guard. Militias were the first to fight the British. Americans knew first hand what it was like to live under a tyrannical king. They weren't fighting a foreign government, they were fighting against their own government. So put yourself in the Founding Fathers place and why they felt it necessary to create the 2A so the citizens can protect themselves against a government that decides it is above the people. You might say it's not necessary but many people believe our government handled Covid in a very tyrannical approach. I saw first hand how the government forced young men into a war they disagreed with and hindsight shows us those who opposed the draft were correct. Of course I'm referring to the Vietnam war. History repeats itself so it is never a good idea to let ones guard down. I believe our Founding Fathers were very keen to that fact and made sure the citizens could stay prepared.

 

Like a semi-automatic rifle? Or because a rifle just looks badass? Magazines that hold just 10 rounds can quickly be changed out for another 10 rounds with a little practice. So exactly what are you talking about when you say variations?

 

You want ME to predict what the Democrats will produce for law? Are you "for real"?

 

The Constitution says it.

Covid? Oh, yes the horror of having to wear a mask in a grocery store. Did you pick up your rifle and fight that tyranny? See, comparing mask wearing to the revolutionary war is where you lose credibility.

American Revolutionary War had a draft too. Was that tyranny? I'm sure some saw it that way, and if there people who think Covid mask was "tyranny" then clearly anything can be called tyranny where they think violence is justified to oppose it. One day people with such mindsets will start killing people over things like masks and they'll say its necessary to "water the tree of liberty", and that kind of killing spree would be tyranny indeed. I wish they'd water the tree with their own blood, but I'm a afraid they prefer using other peoples blood. Absurdly in their own minds they are the "good guys" fighting for what they think is freedom.