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

what do those homicide capitals have in common?

 

Oh.
Oh yeah.
Silly me.

 

The overall murder rate, and murders by firearm are likely at a fairly fixed ratio. Regardless, unless you have data that indicates in a period of declining crime gun homicides were actually increasing, which is preposterous, you better bring some actual facts to the table and not just blah blah blah.

What the chart that I linked does establish beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the idea of more guns means more crimes is bullshit, else what you see on my chart would be impossible, and would have simply never have happened, for whatever the reason was.

And yes, I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to realize that as population density increases, so does the rate of crimes, and my chart showed both, so I'm not seeing what your beef is.

Other than the fact that it interferes with your agenda.

As for your chart, which appears to have come from the same source, I'm not sure I understand what point you were trying to make by sharing it.

 

I think most of us have figured out that avid gun banners are not going to be convinced about crime statistics since that isn't what motivates their desire to rescind or dilute our rights

 

Nice rifles. How are you defining the term 'assault weapon' when making this statement?
;
Here's my favorite one-

 

The US 1994 AWB.

Nice! I like quad rails.

 

So... the fixed stock and no flash suppressor. Check, that's what I thought, though I didn't notice it until after i posted. My wife is far, far too short for a fixed stock to work for us, unless we got her a short person fixed one on her own rifle. But she's Puerto Rican, and dangerous enough with just a chankla.

 

Compared to a pre-ban gun: No flash suppressor or bayonet lug.

Yeah, the adjustable stock is nice, for a myriad of reasons.

 

Which you cannot attribute to the AR ban.

 

if you ever see an anti rights advocate claiming ARs are the firearms most needing banning, right away you know that preventing murders is not their goal since more people are killed in a month in Chicago, Baltimore and DC with handguns than ARs are used in several years.

 

No chance of that.

First, the gun industry makes just as much money on a rifle regardless of whether or not it is an assault rifle, so the industry really doesn't care.

Second, assault rifles were banned in 1986. This ban continues today.

There is a good argument for repealing that 1986 ban, given that no assault rifle that is (or was ever) legally owned by an American civilian has ever been used to commit a crime.

But your comment seems a bit off topic. Assault rifles have nothing to do with ordinary hunting and self-defense rifles like the AR-15.

That is incorrect. Gun control is not about trying to stop murders (or mass murders), and it certainly will not have any such effect.

The only point of gun control is to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

AR-15s? Not many.

Gun control has nothing to do with trying to reduce the number of mass shootings.

Gun control is not about trying to reduce deaths.

The only point of gun control is to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

The assault rifle ban started in 1986 and continues to this day.

I think there have been more massacres per year after 1986 than before.

 

Not towards the gun industry. They don't care what kind of guns they sell.

It is lackeyism towards the American people, who dislike having their civil liberties violated by the left.

Lackeyism towards the people is appropriate in a democracy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too much recoil. Not enough armor penetration.

Buy an SKS for granny. Or better yet, an AR-15.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never!

Republicans protect us from progressives. They prevent progressives from violating our civil liberties.

 

He is not making any assumptions. The left truly is motivated only by a desire to violate people's civil liberties.

What you are essentially saying is that ignorant people make dumb proposals.

It is the reason why why ignorant people should not be making decisions.

It is the reason why ignorant people should not even be listened to.

The thing is, while there probably are some moderates who support such gun control out of ignorance, that is not what motivates the left.

The solution to the problem of "moderates who support gun control out of ignorance" is to educate them.

The left however does not care about the truth. The problem with the left is not that they are ignorant. The problem with the left is that they hate freedom and civil liberties.

The answer to such ignorance is education.

The downside to abolishing freedom, is the loss of that freedom.

I thought we were talking of AR-15s and not assault rifles??

The first argument is used when people call to outlaw all guns. It is true that the AR-15 is just an ordinary rifle.

When was the last time we've heard of an assault weapon that is (or was ever) legally owned by a civilian being used to commit a crime?

Hint: It has never happened.

People defend themselves with guns all the time. I'm not sure why you haven't heard about it.

Moderates who are ignorant will quickly learn the truth when people educate them.

The left doesn't even care about the truth. But opposing them with facts might help to educate an ignorant moderate.

 

He is correct about need. That's not how Strict Scrutiny works.

Gun owners have no burden to prove that they need their gun.

If someone wishes to ban a type of gun, the burden is on them to show that there is a need for such a ban.

"I hate freedom and want to violate people's civil liberties" does not count as a valid reason for outlawing pistol grips and flash suppressors.

 

I think his answer did address your points.

I don't think it is. The fact that murder is already illegal seems pretty relevant.

The fact that our rights are not absolute does not make it OK for the left to violate those rights.

That is incorrect. He is correct about the left being motivated solely by a desire to violate people's civil liberties.

Not at all. Such laws may well deter people from murdering.

Seems like a good argument to me. Is there any counter to the argument?

Can you point out any flaws in his arguments?

Unfortunately the left regularly appoints judges who hate the Constitution and allow it to be violated.

 

Me too. No sarcasm.

Time to stand up to the gun banners and tell them no more.

 

That is incorrect. Outlawing pistol grips and flash suppressors is not about reducing any killing.

Maybe so. But that does not change the reality that "deterring people from acquiring a gun with a pistol grip and flash suppressor on it" has nothing to do with saving a single life.

Outlawing pistol grips and flash suppressors does not create a single barrier to any crime or murder.

Way off topic, and not that outlawing pistol grips and flash suppressors is even an attempt to stop depressed people from lashing out, but it seems especially callous to me to see someone who is suffering so much, and, instead of wanting to alleviate their pain, just wanting to make sure that they can't lash out at anyone as they suffer in silence.

When I hear about people who are suffering so much that they want to lash out like that, my thoughts go to how best to alleviate their suffering.

Start by learning about Strict Scrutiny.

Then learn about the new legal standard that the Supreme Court just created in Bruen.

Rulings about assault weapons are irrelevant to the question of AR-15s.

It is pretty safe speculation that no ban on AR-15s could ever pass muster with any standard of judicial review. There simply is no plausible reason to outlaw AR-15s.

"Thinking that it is fun to violate people's civil liberties" doesn't count as a valid reason for doing so.

It is unlikely that the courts will rule against the 1986 ban on assault weapons.

Any ban on ordinary hunting and self defense rifles like AR-15s, however, will never stand up to any standard of judicial review.

Again, there simply is no plausible reason to outlaw AR-15s.

Can you back that up with facts or logic, or with any other sort of plausible argument?

How do untrue claims make true claims unsuccessful??

The only opinions that matter for the purposes of this thread are the ones that can be backed up with facts and/or logic.

For the purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter whether an argument comes from a judge or not.

I've not heard him make that argument (unless you are referring specifically to federal laws).

A correct legal argument does not depend on judicial agreement in order for it to be correct.

I doubt that the courts will rule against the 1986 ban on assault weapons.

They will definitely however rule in favor of letting everyone have AR-15s with 30-round magazines.

The fact that their rulings are in compliance with the Constitution, however, does make their reading right.

What this means is that people need to vote for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump) because the left is out to abolish our freedom and violate our civil liberties.

Doing their job and upholding the Constitution is hardly interventionist or revisionist.

 

Rightly so.

Those who care about saving lives will check and see if their proposal reduces the overall homicide rate.

Those who don't care about saving lives will talk about gun violence as if it makes some sort of difference whether someone is "murdered with a gun" or "murdered with some other kind of weapon".

There is no such thing as a long standing illegal arms trade from America.

 

Fake news. Bogus "research".

Fake news.

No assault weapon that is (or was ever) legally owned by an American civilian has ever been used to commit a crime.

Rand is correct to see the results as inconclusive. The studies were clearly bogus.

Again, no assault weapon that is (or was ever) legally owned by an American civilian has ever been used to commit a crime.

 

Since this represents a new level of denial? Weird? Strange? I am not going to rebut this instead I am going to sit back and see how many agree with you

 

It isn't possible to rebut reality.

Or at least, I've never seen it done. And I've seen my share of online debate.

Why would it matter whether anyone agrees with me or not?

I'm not saying that no one agrees with me. I just don't see how it matters either way.

 

I will just wait for posters like Turtledude to reply

 

Suit yourself. I'm on the first page of the Jon Stewart gun thread and about to watch the John Oliver video that you posted there.

I have no idea yet if I will have any comment about it.

 

As I clearly stated, in the post which you are answering, I am not interested in a semantic, and ultimately meaningless debate, over what actually is, in your opinion, an "assault rifle." I am using the term the way it is used by all those who discuss the issue, including in Congressional debate. The practical reason for wanting to use the same terminology, to refer to the same thing, as do the vast majority of others, opining in the same issue, should be obvious. If we are all using the wrong word, in your opinion, so what? Feel free to come up with another term, which will cover the exact same guns that it is understood are meant by this term, and not any others which are not intended to be covered, when people (including the U.S. President) say "assault weapon." IOW, it would be wrong for you to say that this means "all guns," because no one says "assault weapons," if they mean all guns.

The AR-15 is the most popular of this type of weapon, whatever you want to call it, for mass shootings. Another of our members, modern paladin, had suggested that it was unnecessary to specify AR-15, since just AR-type would cover the category. Please take any disagreement you have with that idea, to him.

Wrong. People certainly have used legally owned guns, in mass shootings. Starting with Adam Lanza, the guy who used his mother's legally owned assault rifle, at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and there were plenty of others, as well. Please do not expect me to do your research, to correct your ignorance, on this topic. For one thing, I get the feeling that there is a good reason, for your still having such a misguided belief, about no legal weapon, ever having been used in a crime: you will not pay any attention to facts, even were I to go through the trouble of gathering the documentation, just to prove to you, what I already know and which, in fact, is even common knowledge.

Secondly, your own quotes make clear, why you should be the one, to want to educate yourself:

It sounds like you are the one, most in need of education. Though you speak of "facts," you quote none. Your post reads as no more than the ignorant spouting of a lot of gas, which is nothing but one loudmouth's opinion. Obviously you think very highly of your ability, to discern the thoughts of the entire left (we are, after all, psychologically linked into one master-brain, controlling all of us). While you make no credible argument, I will give you that you do have cause for your obvious pride, in your ability to correctly spell the word "ignorant."

 

Never underestimate the capacity for "legislators" to find ways of avoiding real work.