The truth about 'assault wewapons' and mass shootings in the US

Funny, odds are he won't understand your post making it even more humorous.

 

Your terminology is flawed. Semi-automatic (or "self-loading") firearms utilize a magazine that contains ammunition and use gas-operated or recoil-operated mechanisms to "automatically" clear the chamber and load a fresh cartridge. An "old west" revolver was generally a single-action revolver that had to be manually manipulated to rotate the cylinder and bring another loaded chamber in line to be fired. Nothing "automatic" or "semi-automatic" in that mechanism whatsoever. Single action and double action revolvers are not "semi-automatic" any more than a bolt action rifle is.

There is no such thing as a "banana clip". There are en bloc clips (such as used by the classic M1 Garand rifle) and stripper clips. If the news reports are correct, the shooter in Virginia used a SKS rifle, which has an integral magazine and is loaded through the top of the action via 10-round stripper clips, which are discarded once the rifle is loaded. Some SKS rifles have been modified to use detachable box magazines similar to carbines such as the AR-15 or the AK-47, but those are magazines, not "clips".

 

The truth about 'assault wewapons' and mass shootings in the US

lol @ wewapons'

 

Aw... you gave him the answer. Dr Who left him a puzzle. Still, you left him with an hour or more of Googling.

 

205 posts and not a single meaningful counter from the anti-gun side.

 

Not true.
As a Retired Policeman, I carry in order to defend myself.
No fear etc....

 

My grandfather was a cop, and carried a gun every day of his adult life; even long after he'd retired. I spent time in law enforcement, and saw the difference in outcomes between criminals attacking unarmed people versus armed people, and have decided to spend the rest of my life on the correct side of that equation!

 

I made over a dozen cap & ball revolvers, and I would be comfortable even with one of those old relics, I would never wish to be unarmed.

However, at least my skills include Gun manufacture.......

 

I could take a chair, a common piece of furniture that is used for sitting, pick it up and use it as a weapon in an ASSAULT, so does this make a chair an ASSAULT WEAPON? I never understood the term because anything can be used as a weapon to assault someone else, so does this mean that shovels, chairs, books, pencils, pens, pots and pans should also be banned. I know the reason given is that said assault weapons can be used to injure or murder multiple people but there is still ambiguity in the argument. To wit: can passenger cars, buses, trucks, and vans also be classified as assault weapons because said vehicles can and have been used in mass murders.

The parsing apart the argument against guns reveals inconsistencies and intentional misgivings. People unfamiliar with the subject matter either agreement or become confused as a result, which is exactly the desired end goal because when people become confused or disorientated about an issue, they tend to shy away from said topic.

 

In short, this is what you get when people start with "I hate guns!" and work backwards from there.
No one ever said the anti-gun left made sense.

 

An Old West Revolver is not semi-automatic. It's a single action revolver, meaning that the hammer has to be pulled back manually for every shot. A modern revolver is not semi-automatic either. Semi-automatic means that the action provides the motion necessary to load the next round. That does not happen in most revolvers (there are one or two semi-automatic revolvers, but they are either rare or old).

 

Australia is an expert in this area, since they put their black people on reservations and take away their guns, beer and anything else they don't want them to have.

 

This is for the people in Texas:
Pantera - Floods

 

Assault the flood:

 

So.. your argument is, since assault weapons only account for a small percentage of the total number of gun deaths resulting from the steady 'drip' of hand-gun violence, there should be no ban on assault weapons.

Would the massacre in Las Vegas - 60 dead and 500 injured, in tens minutes - have been possible with a hand gun?

 

It's possible with a rental truck.

 

Not a small percent, but incredibly tiny.
But yes - this is the obvious, rational conclusion; any argument for banning 'assault weapons' can only be supported by fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

And thus, a fallacious appeal to emotion. Thank you for proving my point.

 

Great recommendation! I have two and second your recommendation for the AK-47 for home defense and hog huntin'!

 

True. Even an 18-wheeler simply driven through the fence and into the crowd would have produced mass casualties.

http://www.newsweek.com/stockholm-vehicle-attacks-europe-580596
Tunisian national Mohamed Bouhlel plowed a 19-ton truck into revellers celebrating the Bastille Day holiday on July 14, 2016, as they watched fireworks on the French Riviera city's Promenade des Anglais. Bouhlel killed 86 people—the deadliest-ever vehicle attack on European soil. Armed police shot and killed him when he fired out of the cab of his vehicle......

 

Their silence on the 64,000+ annual overdose deaths and 40,000+ annual suicides is deafening. It proves their argument about "saving lives" is a lie.

 

No one is surprised.

 

I think if a poll is taken asking which of you has actually ever fired an assault weapon, under 5 percent certainly and probably under 1 percent have actually fired them.

When i went to high school, circa 1952-56, I attended a high school with the state version of the ROTC. I spent 2 years in the CA cadet Corps. We were essentially attending basic training. Since daily we only had an hour of class, part of it was devoted to using our own weapons range and firing mostly the target .22 cal rifle. We got graded on our scores. The class took field trips as well so we were taken in buses to an outdoor range close to the UC Berkeley campus. The range is or was in Wildcat Canyon where the hills afforded firing heavy weapons and the bullets not being able to impact on residents.

There i fired my first assault weapon. i also fired for the only time, the .50 caliber machine gun.

Some years later, in the Army, I fired a lot more machine guns but the assault weapons used at the Cal range, were not in training by the Army at the time. However to me, a M-60 machine gun that can easily be fired using the shoulder stock, is an assault weapon and i fired that at Fort. Ord. The M-1 Garand semi automatic is more stable a platform than the typical assault weapon so i believe in many cases, I prefer semi automatic to full automatic. If you actually need to kill a man, best to aim. Assault weapons bounce a lot. I fired the BAR and that again to me qualifies as an assault weapon. I got a nearly perfect score at the range and held the record for highest score, i was told by the company commander. So how is it I got the top score? i mastered the technique of only shooting two bullets in a row when most guys could not hold it down to 3 bullets per trigger squeeze. i believe it kept my aim a lot steadier so my hits on the bulls eye got better and better. The BAR is heavy. It should be fired in the prone position. it has a tripod in front. Even so, it will move about on fully automatic. And you miss the target completely. So do i advise anybody in a mass murder mentality use assault weapons, I do not. Not if they want an improved kill rate.
So strangely enough, i would prefer these nut bags use the assault weapon due to them bouncing all over the place.

The killer weapon of choice is the 9 mm semi automatic pistol. it has plenty of punch to kill humans.

But the so called expert Democrats go after the inferior weapons platform, the assault weapon, but give them time and they will want to ban all semi automatic weapons.

Frankly based on whom i see doing the killing, we are dealing not with highly trained and highly skilled killers, they are crazy people. They have no inclination to get extremely good at killing. They may do it for a sick form of fame since most of them die at the end of their acts and seldom get prosecuted. Democrats are clueless what to actually do.

 

What's your opinion of Gius (2017, The Effects of State and Federal Gun Control Laws on School Shootings, Applied Economic Letters) notes: "Using a Poisson, two-way fixed effects model, it was found that assault weapons bans reduced the number of school shooting victims by 54.4%. All other gun control laws (concealed carry laws, private sale background checks and Federal dealer background checks) had no statistically significant effects on school shootings".

 

Oh dude. Like @Hoosier8 said, "assault weapon" is a legal construct from the anti-gun mob. It has no real meaning except "scary looking gun". See the picture below for an example.

OTOH, an assault rifle is a real thing, first invented by the Germans in WWII. The first US assault rifle was the M-16. The M-14 was a battle rifle. The M-2, a .50 machine gun is not an "assault weapon" as you claim nor is it an assault rifle. It's a heavy machine gun.

I have little doubt many pro-gun members of this forum have fired "assault weapons". I'm sure all of the veterans, like myself, have fired assault rifles.

As for the Democrats and their anti-gun agenda, I agree 100%.

 

i swore i wrote my words in plain English, Guess not by that comment.

I want clear up things.

The .45 caliber so called grease gun was invented as an assault weapon. I fire that in high school. True it is a rifle, but to a dead man, as Hillary would blurt out, who cares? This weapon was used starting in WW2 I believe.

The M-16 is a weapon that when I was in the Army was not used. Those showed up in Vietnam. i am older than that.

Since the 50 cal machine gun i fired predated WW2, i did not think of it or claim it to be an assault rifle. It is not easy to use off the tripod. It would take superman to use it hand held. A man would get one hell of a recoil and the gun could knock him down from that alone. The M-14 and the M-1 Garand I fired, were very similar except the M-14 can be used both semi automatic and full automatic and the clip for the ammo has more rounds in them. The Garand held 8 in it's clip. The M-14 probably could hold 20 in it's clip or magazine. Won't argue over petty terminology. A person understanding and using both rifles knows them as well as i know them.

normally as i think of this, the typical shooter has a rifle or more and probably a pistol. Odds are his pistol fires the 9 mm round.

I have owned rifles and pistols i never fired in the Army. I fired just the military weapons when in the Army.

Consider this.... guy gets a flame thrower and goes into a highly occupied area. He could torch a lot of people. But you don't hear about banning those.

i hope i rectified the mistakes you made over what you thought i said.