New Republican bill would make the AR-15 the ‘national gun’

No you are right which is why I have never claimed the sort of direct causation that you can claim that the longer you live the more likely you are to die but the research is getting stronger every day and now it is about to the level of if you fart it will probably smell

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/assault-weapons/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...un-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_22-01-26_gundeaths_4/

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/mass-shootings.html

 

I love conspiracy theory- not!

At present you are acting as the best bad example known for gun control

 

the silly claims gun banners make continue to prove my point that public safety has nothing to do with their schemes to harass lawful gun owners. And when they see foreign actors whining about the rights we have, and they do not, the Aesop fox fable comes to mind

 

So I will repeat the question that started this thread

When will more guns make you more safe?

 

well when I shot one of two mopes who tried to mug me in an alley. Actually shooting the mope saved his life. If I didn't have that 9mm I would have used the knife I was carrying. Much more likely to have killed him. When I hit the first mugger, the second mope gave up. He didn't suffer anything other than the embarrassment of crapping himself when I pointed the weapon at his face after the first guy hit the ground. Maybe if you experienced something like that, you might actually know a bit more of what you are talking about when you argue with people like me

 

No, but restricting the god given rights of 999,997 people because the other 3 did a bad thing is.

 

The last assault rifle ban was an illusion. The manufacturers removed the bayonet lug and flash suppressor, making the rifles not 'assault weapons' as defined in the bill, and kept selling them in that configuration. Do not try to tell me I'm wrong, I saw some of those with my own eyes.

Also, correlation doesn't imply causation, and the period of the illusory assault weapon ban coincided with a time period (that began 3-5 years before the ban was enacted, mostly depending on location) where crime in the United States went down by about 66%, to a level that I think was 0.1/100,000 away from the all-time low that happened in the 60s, I think. Nobody is quite sure why this happened, but I think it was related to Roe v. Wade, as the timing was just right when unwanted pregnancies that otherwise might have been carried to term would have started their prime crime committing years. Unwanted children often are not raised very well, and children who are not raised very well often end up becoming criminals, and the timing fits perfectly.

That said, it's an unknown answer as to why, and likely will never be solved. Below is a picture showing the climb and decline that ended in 2020, partially because of the pandemic, the defund the police movement, the 'peaceful' riots, and prosecutors deciding not to prosecute crimes.

 

No it's not there is not the tiniest shred of research that suggests suicide and homicide is caused by owning guns.

It doesn't have anything to do with to do with gun policy or gun ownership or gun laws or whatever you want to say it has to do it.

A gun is just a weapon of choice that people use to carry out what they wish to carry out they don't wish to carry it out because there's a gun.

 

JFC, even Wikipedia, which like most of Silicon Valley companies is lefty dominated, as is its vault full of volunteer editors, calls the 'weapons effect' idea to be highly controversial. It's a joke theory published by a quack doctor (or whatever) that has no credibility or repeatability, both being critical to even the most baseline of scientific acceptance. You're grasping at straws here.

I do understand why, though, especially since the Bruen decision mandated the 'text, history, and tradition' rule for determining Constitutionality of laws relating to the regulation of firearms pretty much torpedoes all current and dreamed for laws the left wants, including bans on so-called 'assault weapons', laws on standard and large capacity magazines, laws requiring one prove a specific and documentable threat above and beyond that of a normal 'man on the street', and any laws requiring good moral character or any other sort of subjective requirements to hold a carry license.

Which is to say, as I have repeatedly done, that the gun-control game is over, and just as the Obergefell decision forever altered the way marriages between same-sex couples are (not) regulated, the Bruen decision forever alters any attempt to ban or restrict something that can't be shown to have a textual basis, as evidenced by history and tradition of such restrictions.

It's over, fini, boss-level fail, and no lives left to try again. And you guys know that, which is the underpinning desperation shown in this and all other similar threads, of which there are at least 3 on the forum right now, and that is only the ones I personally know exist.

 

Hey, wasting a little time of the Congress that has about as many vacation days in a month as the rest of us enjoy for an entire year is a damn sight better than claiming you are trying to reduce the deficit while simultaneously adding yet another $2 Trillion to our already out of sight expenditures.

 

There is no history or tradition of such a ban going back to the founding. The first time it was tried was 1994, and the way the law was written (because what's an assault weapon?) made it so that all the maunfacturers had to do was remove two components that served no particularly useful function and they otherwise were selling the exact same weapons throughout the 10-year period they were purportedly 'banned'.

So, on the one hand they did not say the words that 'assault weapon bans are Unconstitutional', under the test that is required of lower Courts to apply to such questions, there is nothing for any proponent to lean on or reference that would provide such history of it being done, so they said so indirectly. You are right about one thing, however, and that is that the next case (or cases) that they take they are likely going to have to spell that out as though lower Court Judges were 5th graders, both on AWBs and similar, as well as efforts to, as Justice Thomas wrote in the majority decision, 'Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department…'.

By the by, someone earlier, I'm not sure if it was you or someone else mentioned that merely stating the obvious that a person hell bent on murdering as many as possible wouldn't be deterred by a piece of paper on a Law Library shelf somewhere, I think Justice Alito properly assessed that in this quote: 'Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?'.

If a Supreme Court Justice can bring that up in the actual text of his concurring opinion, it's a valid point to be made in debates such as this, even though the same is true about laws making murder itself illegal. It may not deter many people who are so inclined, but at least it will segregate them from the rest of us, hopefully for the rest of their short lives until they have a date with a needle, which should be the predominant penalty for premeditated murder.

 

This is the same as speeding laws - you restrict some to benefit many many others

Oh! And they are NOT “God given” it is an AMENDMENT to a document written by people for people

 

Hmmmm that chart shows overall murder rates not gun violence and murder rates peaked in the USA in the mid nineties so apples and pears. It also concentrates the data from larger cities


Even the article itself challenges some of the data

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/04/highest-murder-rates-us-cities-list/
See I KNEW that you were taking that graph out of context because “The Trace” is not exactly an NRA astroturf site

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/03/gun-violence-facts-and-solutions/

Deaths are only part of the problem

 

I would be very curious to hear your technical analysis that has led you to conclude that. Let me get you started.

An AR-15 fires a .223 or 5.56mm round downrange at approximately 3,000 fps. There is nothing special or unique about the round itself, and by rifle standards it is relatively underpowered when compared to it's peers like a 7.62mm or a .30-30. So underpowered, in fact, that many states ban it's use for hunting some game animals because it is considered so underpowered that it prolongs the death of the animal being hunted and causes it needless suffering, when a more powerful one would make for a cleaner, faster kill.

There is also nothing special about the speed of the round, as most rifles fire at about the same speed. There are some examples, for example a .300 Blackout round that is by design a subsonic round that necessitates it traveling at under 1,120 fps which is much closer to that of a typical pistol than a normal rifle.

So, in light of the above, which are facts, not opinions, please enlighten the class as to how exactly it is, "Unusually dangerous".

 

Good! Maybe that will keep the riffraff from wanting to illegally cross our borders en masse. Though I sadly doubt that to be true.

 

The riffraff who are fleeing the violence in their own countries promulgated by a long standing illegal arms trade from America?

 

I personally know of at least 6 people who are alive today because a family member happened to be armed at a critical but unexpected moment. And of the 3 guns involved in those situations, only one was fired, and the person hit was unfortunately not killed. I say unfortunately because he was and is a scumbag who will, sooner or later, kill at least one person, if he hasn't already done so without getting caught.

So, the answer to your question of 'when?' is when those critical, but unexpected moments happen. Now, I personally know of a whole lot more than 3 people who routinely carry a sidearm, inclusive of myself, and except for those mentioned above, none of us have had one of those critical moments happen, but... We're not dead yet. And staying that way as long as possible is the point.

 

A 'cousin' of mine committed suicide some years back using a handgun that I have no idea where it came from.

However, she was a lonely 400 lb. woman in her mid- to late-40s who could very accurately be called a 'crazy cat lady', and who had a raging case of diabetes (because she was so fat) that had already necessitated her to have a foot amputated. Shortly before she chose to take her own life, she was informed by her doctor that the other foot was going to have to be amputated as well.

The reason she made the decision she did should be obvious to anyone who read the preceding paragraph, and the gun was just a convenient way to get the job done.

Before I also lost my ability to walk (I have seriously considered whether or not it might make sense to just rid myself of these useless limbs, but that is a decision that is yet to be made), I sympathized with her and thought that if I was in her position, I might make the same decision she did, not knowing that within 8 or so years I would find myself in a very similar situation.

Though I am not at all lonely, indeed I credit my wife with being the primary reason I am still amongst the living, and instead of being depressed about my loss of function, I'm just happy that we will be able to grow old together, and I actually hope we can both go together when the time comes, hopefully at the age of about 175 and a half. Though I don't have enough fingers to demonstrate that to any adult who may ask how old I am, as I am in no way an adult myself lol... And while we do have two dogs that I adore and love, I do not think we are, or ever will be 'crazy dog people'. We almost lost the older one a few months ago, but for some unknown reason she bounced back from death's door and will be 15 soon, so she has had a much longer life than most dogs get. And both of 'em are spoiled rotten, but it will crush both of us when their time comes.

It is inevitable, though, and we'll get over it eventually. I am sort of stuck mentally trying to figure out if it is healthier to get a new dog soon after our girls pass, or to give it some time, and I suppose that will be a joint decision that will only be made after the fact.

But now that I've gone about 1,000 miles off topic, my point is that though she did kill herself with a gun, her reasons for ending her life were crystal clear, and had nothing to do with the availability of said gun. For all I know she went out and bought it solely to off herself. She was not a blood cousin to me, but she was raised as though she was, and I didn't even become aware of that until sometime in my 30s. But I can count on one hand the number of times we were in the same room together, so we weren't exactly BFFs.

 

I bought several during that period. I was Married in Late 1993 My wife wanted a Colt Light weight AR 15. so I bought her one that had the fixed stock and no bayonet lug. The minute that stupid law ended I put a adjustable stock on it and a flash hider

 

It does not matter how strong the "research" is: Correlation never proves causation.

The fact the 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce the number of 'assault weapons' disproves any possible claim it had any effect while in place.
The fact the 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce the number of 'assault weapons' disproves any possible claim the expiration of the ban had any effect.

 

The 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms.
In the US, our rights pre-exist the Constitution and are therefore not dependent on it.

 

Bought my first AR in december 2000 - NIB. DPMS DCM A2.

It's the rifle on the bottom. They say it is NOT an 'assault weapon'.
The rifle on the top, the same people say, IS an 'assault weapon'.

 

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what that amendment does.

There is no language in the amendment that grants any rights. It does nothing but prohibit government infringement of what was recognized as an inherent inalienable right that everyone has.

 

Irrelevant. Virtually every driver speeds, at least from time to time, and nobody is having their cars taken away, nor are any category of cars being banned because of it.

Quoting the DOI: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Who or what that 'Creator' may be is irrelevant. Whether you think it's just Mother Nature, are a believer in this or that religion, or think we are a crossbreed between apes and aliens, we came from something. And many of us, most importantly the Founders, who I quoted above, think those rights, including the ones that are 'just' an Amendment, as if that somehow made them second class rights, which while true is not relevant, are inherent to being human. I concur. The Constitution only protects pre-existing rights, and if you studied the history of that time period, which you no doubt hate because they created the object of your obsessions and hatred, you would know that.

It is, or at least was what is taught in virtually every American classroom in the country. With the obsession about teaching kindergartners about sexual identity issues, I have no idea if such things are taught today, in fact I rather doubt it. After all, most of the Founders were racist, so they should be cancelled and deleted from history, no?

 

you mean you don't know that the bullets coming out of the top one blow bodies apart but the one on the bottom is so weak it is illegal for hunting 150 pound deer in many states?