BREAKING NEWS: disgruntled employee just killed eleven (11) co-workers in Virginia Beach

I hate tats. A band with a picture of a gun on it will do.

Seriously, this is for when you are on the Internet.

 

Not quite. The Armalite version of the AR-15 was the prototype to the later M16. The AR-15 produced by the Colt Manufacturing Company, and subsequent manufacturers, is a wholly semi-automatic design intended for sportsmen, and was never marketed for military use.

Such was indeed the case. The first semi-automatic rifles and shotguns on the market were released thirty one years before the Garand came into production, starting with the Browning A5 and Model 8.

Such is not denied.

Such an evaluation would ultimately depend on how the matter is viewed. Take the Miller ruling for example. In that case the united state supreme court at the time could have ruled the defendant, a convicted felon in possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, did not have legal standing to challenge his conviction since he was not part of the well-regulated militia, and dismissed the case without hearing or ruling upon it. The court did not do such, and instead found Miller did have sufficient standing to warrant the challenge. Instead of focusing on who could possess firearms under what circumstances, the court focused on what types of firearms could be owned by the general public, which they stated were those suitable for use in militia duties and purposes.

By a strict reading of Miller, firearms such as the AR-15 would be protected for private ownership, but hunting rifles that utilize a bolt-action method of operation would not be.

In most cases, such a variable would have made no actual or practical difference in terms of the number of lives lost. The number of rounds discharged does not actually correlate to the number of lives that can be lost. The primary firearm of choice in the majority of mass shootings in the united states has been the handgun, chiefly due to it being lightweight, convenient, and concealable. Fully-automatic firearms are not such in any case, and would likely not be chosen to any greater extent than semi-automatic rifles. It is a trade off between firepower and portability/concealability.

 

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/rimfire-vs-centerfire-ammunition/

 

It is the law of unintended consequences. The public certainly did not think the patriot act would lead to widespread abridgement of civil rights and invasive domestic spying against those who were not suspected terrorists, yet such is exactly what happened. Anything that can be used by an administration against one group, can easily be utilized by a future administration against an entirely different group.

 

Whether or not such is the case, it is ultimately the reality of the situation. The problem is too far gone to try and attempt to head off.

 

So we should just do nothing?

 

I dont know about the US but in Oz its called "sticking your head in the sand". The uproar might then go away.

 

I do but I'm not always where the rifle is nor is it convenient or wise to take it everywhere.
I can't normally fit an AK down my pants underneath my shirt in an IWB holster, for instance.

 

so restrictions are working

 

What makes the weapon "semi-automatic" is that the user doesn't have to extract the shell after firing, nor insert the next one (as in a bolt-action rifle). Though both semis and autos are repeaters, the semi does require a trigger pull for each bullet and the auto can fire continuously as long as the trigger is held.

This semi-auto issue is a question of semantics, gun control advocates probably realize that by calling for a ban on "assault rifles" and showing the public an AR-15, they will deceive the people into endorsing a ban on semi-automatic weapons (which means practically all guns), rather than on "machine guns" (which many think an AR-15 is). A ban on machine guns already exists, it isn't absolute, but appears unnecessary as these are very rarely encountered.

 

Yes... the success of the anti-gun left depends on its ability to lie and the ignorance of its useful idiots.

 

In order for someone to do something that is actually meaningful and of substance, rather than just presenting the image of doing something, it is first necessary to evaluate the full scope of the matter that is attempting to be addressed. Until one stops, and takes stock of the situation to know exactly what they are facing, all that can be done is nothing more than wasteful effort. One must look at the larger picture and numerous factors to understand the matter properly to know just how to proceed. It is not something that can be addressed and understood within the space of a soundbyte.

 

In the united states, firearm-related violence dropped by significant levels even without the implementations of new firearm-related restrictions, even as the rates of firearm ownership increased.

Not every problem requires an immediate and significant legislative response to address.

 

Except for the fact that such is not the case. Sound suppressors simply do not work in real life the way they do in the area of entertainment. Their use simply makes firearms more difficult to conceal, and adds more weight toward the muzzle that must be contended with.

Sound suppressors were never a primary choice for criminal purposes, simply because they do not work. The only reason that were subjected to regulations to begin with, is because game wardens were upset with how sympathetic juries would not return guilty verdicts against starving poachers during the great depression.

 

As was proudly admitted by Josh Sugarmann of the violence policy center, who advocated exploiting the ignorance of the public to build support for greater firearm-related restrictions.

 

Not nothing, but we should do things that are practical, not silly and unconstitutional, which seems to be the current trend.

 

The very best way to counter mass shootings is to get rid of the gun free zones where they most commonly occur.

 

Yes, true.
Getting the ammo is the hard part.

 

if they were legal, they would get better and better and more woudl use them, as they are illegal, no one really wants to make them or invest in the technology

 

How would such actually amount to being a problem? Why would it make a difference?

Sound suppressors are not illegal, they are merely restricted. Outside of the united states, such is not the case, meaning there is sufficient room and motivation for investment and development in the technology, both abroad and locally.

 

Ignorant. Absolutely ignorant.

 

In some countries suppressors are legal for hunters, I think even required in some areas.

 

lol, ok, thanks for lettings know

 

cause they woudl be used more in crimes like murder

 

Is this you?