Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

but we're not doing would have or can be, we're doing what actually happened. YOU confirmed the AR's are the weapon of choice...which is why it should NOT be on the open marked for nuts and criminals and evil doers to have easy access to. Thanks for making my point. Buh-bye.

 

Have you ever concealed a firearm?

 

if it's true, as you indirectly admit, then it supports what I say. Clearly, you're out of steam and just blathering negatives displaying insipid stubbornness. You're done.

 

Nope. My pop was a homicide detective, showed me a lot of stuff. You'd be amazed at what you can conceal when dressed properly with the proper weapon. (i.e., leg holster).

 

Except there is no difference functionally between the "assault" and "hunting" variants in those images.
You only demonstrate that you don't know anything about this topic and shouldn't be listened to

 

Facts not in evidence. And we already had a failed ban on guns that look militarily.

"So, did the previous "assault weapons" ban work?

It turns out that various independent studies came to the same conclusion: the ban had no measurable impact on the number of shootings or the number of shooting deaths while it was in effect.

A 2005 report from the National Research Council, for example, noted that "A recent evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impactson gun violence outcomes."

A 2004 study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice found that while the ban appeared to have reduced the number of crimes committed with "assault weapons," any benefits were "likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics."

As a result, the Justice study found "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.""
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/we-banned-assault-weapons-before-and-it-didnt-work/

You see when you cite something you post the relevant parts so the person can respond to what you are saying in public for everyone else to see...................that's how it works around here

 

So you've never done it, and you saw daddy do it once.

Ok. Please don't take this wrong way but: Those of us qualified to have this discussion would like to have it without having you underfoot sport.

 

Good grief, that doesn't even make sense. You are arguing that certain rights protected in the Second Amendment need to be taken away. Are you asserting that I shouldn't argue against that possible loss until the rights are actually lost?

 

Doesn't look like any CHL carriers were there. I wonder why.

 

If that were the case, then the AR's would not be so popular, now would they? By your "logic" these jokers would just buy what's out for as "hunting variants". You demonstrate the forced myopia of gun lobbyist saying anything to protect sales.

 

I just told you, it does not support what you claim. Period.

 

No, your previous post does not make sense. To date, NOTHING I posted denies your right to own a fire arm. A plethora of shotguns, hunting rifles, semi-autos, etc., at your disposal. That you can't have assault weapons (AR's designed for military training) is just tfb, because the victims of these in the last 20 years is too high a price for our ideology.

 

So the firearm can be identified.

 

Then share with us all what the functional difference is between the "hunting" mini 14 and the "assault" mini 14.

ARs are popular because they're cheap, easy to assemble, reliable, able to be made from almost anything, and come in a rainbow of configurations for the anal retentive person who enjoys tweaking performance to the Nth degree. That's like asking why Black and Decker hand drills are popular.

 

If you're banning ARs you're banning semi autos. Also ARs were not designed for military training the AR 15 was designed for the civilian market ffs.

 

He doesn't understand that manufacturers need references too

 

lol, a person ignorant of firearms is telling those of us who carry everyday that we are the ones who would be surprised at what can be carried. I'm certain that it would not shake out that way.

http://concealednation.org/2016/12/...sories-this-woman-is-successfully-concealing/

 

Even though you started the thread, others have posted their thoughts. Some of those posts reflect that America should be more like Australia when it comes to gun control. They want bans, I don't. My responses have been related to that content. So at this point, I'm just not sure why you have been wasting forum space on this - so you simply want restrictions, not bans on all guns. I don't want bans, or the restrictions you speak of. So we both know where the other stands now.

On a different note: "That you can't have assault weapons (AR's designed for military training) is just tfb". When you say "assault weapons (AR's designed for military training)," could you please explain exactly what you are referring to? Are you talking about the very common semi-auto AR-15 that can be purchased at the local sporting goods store, or are you speaking of something else?

 

If the AWB had demonstrably decreased shootings, it would have been reinstated. It didn't. The mass shootings with rifles you're so obsessed with are a tiny fraction of overall shootings, nearly all the rest being done with pistols. The only ones to blame for harshing your mellow are the shooters that pick the scariest gun available and the media that seeks to remind you which guns are sposed to bad.

If you want to decrease shootings, control pistols (and good luck...). If you want to feel better, stop watching the news. A new AWB will accomplish neither.

 

And the AWB would not have prevented him from getting a weapon with the same fire power and same capacity. And I stated they are a popular weapon throughout the country, for legal gun owners.

I posted to the studies that show AWB made no difference.

 

It was the immediately preceding post. All you had to do was look up one post from mine. 374. I was replying to Polydectes, the person I quoted in my post.

 

And also traced. Since my father's time as a street cop back in the early 1960's, criminals hoped to deal in stolen weapons with the serial numbers filed off....that way if the cops get it, they can't tell where the gun came from....which can lead to how many were distributed sold and where. It's a TRACE, my friend...primitive by today's standards, but part of a trace pattern none the less.

 

Okay, let's take it from the top:

- gunners love to use the argument that the AR-15's fire power can be duplicated or done better by a number of weapons that were not on the 1994 AWB list. Just google "argument AR 15 not desirable" to see what I mean.

- you make the same mistake they do....in brandishing your expertise, you inadvertently show exactly how different the AR-15's are and what makes them so desirable….and why they should NOT be in the general population....as it has shown in various mass shootings in the last 2 decades.

 

Tell it to the people in the state of California.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#13

13. What should I do if I don’t want to keep my assault weapon/.50 BMG rifle?

If you have an unregistered assault weapon/.50 BMG rifle, you must relinquish it to law enforcement.

If you have a registered assault weapon/.50 BMG rifle, you have the following options:

1. Sell the weapon to a licensed gun dealer who has a permit from DOJ to purchase assault weapons/.50 BMG rifles.
2. Make arrangements with your local police department or sheriff's office to relinquish your assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle. Call first. Do not go to the police department or sheriff’s office without first making prior arrangements.
3. Lawfully remove the weapon from this state.
4. Render the weapon permanently inoperable.

 

Prove such.

Multiple modified firearms were utilized. Modified in a manner that made them illegal. The two individuals were also found in possession of explosive devices at the time of their initial arrest. Yet despite all of the evidence that could have put them in prison for quite some time, the state of California offered them a plea deal for a reduced sentence of only one hundred days in prison. On top of that, the two petitioned the court to return their weapons, and the court agreed with the request.