Assault rifle ban will fail without objective definitions because...

And if such firearms were not readily available, the majority of planned mass shootings would be committed with handguns, and whatever number of magazines the individuals responsible believe they will need to achieve their goals. So ultimately what meaningful difference would be made? The planned mass shootings will always be more deadly than those that are spur of the moment, as Virginia Tech proved by being the second deadliest mass shooting in the history of the united states. The only reason the individual Stephen Paddock did better was due to his choice of location. Had he been on the ground, as were all other mass shooters, his results would have been far lower.

 

maybe, maybe not, you think the lass vegas shooter would have killed as many people without an assault weapon?

 

Indeed so. The city of Nice in the nation of France suffered a terrorist attack that yielded eighty six dead, and another four hundred and thirty four seriously injured, was committed with a single motor vehicle over the span of just a few minutes.

The rounds discharged from a handgun remain lethal even after one mile worth of travel. Had Stephen Paddock been limited to handguns, numerous handguns and numerous magazines in his case, he still would have been able to murder a great many individuals if the choice of location had been the same. He was simply firing wildly into an exceedingly large crowd where aiming was not necessary, guaranteeing he would get hits regardless of how much effort at accuracy he attempted.

 

Actually, the justification would be why would civilian law enforcement have need for any weapon that is illegal for the average citizen. I don't think police officers should be armed with anything that can't be bought off the shelf. They simply don't have the discipline and control that the military does. In fact, one of the handful of crimes committed with a legal full automatic weapon was by a cop who used his duty SMG to commit armed robberies.

 

Because it is possible for a government to create an army if it wants to do so.

We had one during the Revolutionary War.

My characterization was entirely correct. Free people have the right to carry guns if we choose to do so. Serfs have to convince their lord that they need a gun before they are allowed to have it.

That is incorrect. The terms are interchangeable.

No semi-auto-only gun is an assault weapon.

Also, no gun with a fixed magazine is an assault weapon.

And no gun that isn't effective at 300 meters is an assault weapon.

Because the traits that make a gun appropriate for the police are also the traits that make a gun appropriate for self defense.

"Requiring the police to use civilian-accessible weapons" guarantees that civilians will have access to weapons that are effective for self defense.

"Requiring the police to use civilian-accessible weapons" guarantees that the police will not be equipped with weapons that are inappropriate for police use.

It's a win-win.

 

I'd just call them ordinary guns, because that's what they are.

If large magazines are used, it could be specified that they were ordinary guns with large magazines attached to them.

But they don't. They use ordinary weapons, perhaps with large magazines attached to them.

168 people murdered with a bomb:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

108 people murdered with bombs:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shijiazhuang_bombings

100 people murdered with a bomb:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolgrad_palace_bombing

86 people murdered with a truck:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

 

How come Australia managed not only to define the issue but ban the buggery out of them?

 

Frequency of these attacks versus mass shootings?

 

Again look at Aus

We have not gone past the 1996 firearm reform act. We haven’t lost more “freedoms” and in fact some of the original restrictions have been loosened

 

because the lives of private citizens are just as valuable as civilian government employees and us private citizens are the real first responders to violent crime. Unlike cops, we don't ever choose the time and the place when we have to confront violent mopes.

 

what I'd like to see from someone like Freud is why almost all gun restrictionists are unable to honestly tell us why they really want to restrict or ban guns--and it has nothing to do with their pretense of controlling criminals

 

We don’t need a Freud to tell us.

 

You didn't. Australia still bans things based on looks. Not long ago they confiscated and banned the import of some bolt action hunting rifles that, while meeting the legally defined standards for 'civilian legal', looked too 'aggressive'. Your definitions are thus meaningless because the ban is just whatever the govt and/or some influencial poeple don't like. That won't fly here.

 

well I would prefer they ban assault riffles, your term... "ordinary weapons" is way worse a description

 

Bet it was challenged in court

 

How come the nation of Australia failed to successfully confiscate all affected and targeted firearms, despite all of them being registered at the time?

 

Such is hardly a defense for such a ridiculous reaction by the nation of Australia, which is admitting it is prohibiting firearms on the basis of their appearance, rather than on anything else.

 

Define an 'assault weapon'. So far not one gun grabber has been able to.

 

We've been over this, the restrictions themselves are a massive loss of liberty. Or they would be for us since we have rights.

 

And lost, iirc.

 

And what is an assault rifle?

 

You now say that 'restrictions' were loosened yet claim you haven't lost any 'freedoms'.

 

That's just common deception. Of both the against self and against others variety.

 

Sorry but that doesn’t explain why they should have equal arms. And no in most cases private citizens have not been the first responders to mass shootings.