As far as united states law is concerned, the discharge of more than one round of ammunition for each pull of the trigger, regardless of the amount being discharged, qualifies as being fully-automatic.
That may be true but one pull of the trigger on a 12 ga, shotgun loaded with 00 buck will send nine .33 cal lead projectiles down range. The Winchester Mod 1300 pump action shotgun can fire five rounds in one second. That's 45 .33 cal lead projectiles going down range. Your average submachine gun only puts 10 rounds down range in one second.
The winchester 1300 is a smooth and light shotgun I wish was still made. The beretta 1301 is the updated 1301 in semi auto. Somehow, it has minimal recoil despite being light and its dimensions are less than a ruger 10/22.
All assault type weapons are military firearms that sometimes have full auto removed to allow the civilians in the US to buy them. They obviously weren't trying to design a weapon that was not a military weapon in the whole AR/Colt program.
First, the phrase "assault weapon" includes firearms that are not rifles, such as handguns and shotguns. It is actually going to be claimed on the part of yourself that semi-automatic handguns which meet the definition of being classified as so-called "assault weapons" were military firearms? Second, there are no firearms on the private market that started life as military firearms with fully-automatic capabilities, only to serve their fully-automatic features removed before being put on the private market for ownership by private citizens. AR-15 rifles produced by the Bushmaster company did not start out as military firearms that were later redesigned to be semi-automatic only in terms of function, rather they were made semi-automatic from the ground up, designed exclusively to be semi-automatic and nothing else.
Assault weapons are generally rifles with high capacity magazines that initially were designed to be military weapons.
Except for the simple fact that none of the above is factually correct. The capacity of a removable magazine does not define a firearm as a so-called "assault weapon" as it is completely separate. There are ten round magazines for the AR-15, as well as five round magazines. Following the logic on the part of yourself, the existence of these magazines means firearms such as the AR-15 cannot qualify as so-called "assault weapons" if one is being used at the time. Second, the AR-15 rifle of current production was not designed for use by the united states military.
You run your mouth about weapons all the time and can't see the simple facts that what people call assault weapons are indeed military weapons available to the public that are semi-auto and more dangerous than full auto military weapons for a mass murderer, because they aim and don't waste ammo with full auto. Some areas only allow 5 round magazines for certain assault weapons and they do so to cut down on the amount of people killed in mass killings. Is there any good reason someone needs a 30 round magazine? The AR-15 is just a semi-auto version of the M 16, just like an SKS is a semi-auto version of the AK-47, both designed for war.
Then following such logic, there is absolutely no legitimate reason for fully-automatic firearms to be subject to the present restrictions placed on them. The above is nothing less than a call for fully-automatic firearms to be made freely available to the public, no different than any other firearms in the united states. Except for the fact that such is not the case, as such magazine restrictions apply exclusively for hunting, rather than matters of personal defense. There indeed are. First, such does not matter. It simply does not matter how similar the AR-15 may appear to the M16, it makes no legal or legitimate difference. It is still a semi-automatic only firearm, and it is marketed exclusively for use by private citizens. It holds no military value, because it is not a military firearm. That is why it is semi-automatic only in nature. Second, there is no parts commonality between the SKS and AK-47 rifles. They are too entirely different platforms, with the only similarity being the cartridge they are chambered for. A cartridge that still does not work in the M14 rifle designed by the united states.
You just make things up. I know for a fact that one guy who had no history with the law was busted trying to sell magazines in an area that had restrictions on magazine size in NY. People are tired of hearing excuses, so if they make gun laws too restrictive for your taste, that's just too bad for you.
Then you did not actually serve in the united states military. Nor did you actually swear an oath to uphold and defend the united states constitution against all enemies, be they foreign or domestic. No individual who actually took such an oath and meant it, would advocate for citizens of the united states to freely surrender their constitutional rights.
And yet none of the claims being made on the part of yourself can actually be proven. Nor is anyone present in this discussion making any effort to actually back up and verify the claims being presented on the part of yourself.
Semi-Automatic High Powered Rifles are illegal or difficult to obtain in most western nations...NO civilian should be able to easily obtain them......PERIOD
The majority of all mass shootings in the united states are committing with handguns rather than rifles. Such a prohibition would make no meaningful difference.
You have me confused with someone who gives a ****. Now, we have two mass shootings in less than 13 hours, one with an AK-type and another with an AR-type. I guess they weren't bright enough to use handguns.
None of which changes the fact the firearms in question are not, never were, and never will be military weapons, as the firearms in question were not fully-automatic, which is what the militaries demand.
This is a silly debate over semantics. A weapon designed for target shooting can be a bolt-action one. In fact, I think some people believe sniper rifles are more accurate if they are bolt action. So also a weapon for hunting. You don't spray and pray at a deer or bear, you try to get them with a single mortal shot. My nephew killed a rare cougar in Idaho with a bolt-action rifle. (No approval of this act implied. He said it threatened children waiting for the school bus in the early morning. Well, we've got lots of children but not many cougars. The non-human kind, I mean.) It took him two shots, as well. Didn't need to riddle the thing. Get an AR-15 if you don't trust your government to maintain law and order in a future Democrat-controlled, open-borders, America. Or if a section of America wants to separate and needs to present "the final argument of kings" to those reluctant to let it go.
The fact is the weapons of choice for mass murderers are military weapons and making them semi-auto makes them very lethal with high capacity magazines and targeting rounds. 9 killed and 16 injured in less than a minute in the Dayton, OH shooting.
Which holds no relevance to the discussion. Absolutely no relevance whatsoever. The above is nothing more than a blatant effort at moving the goalposts to an entirely unrelated discussion.
Any weapon (firearm, Kabar, pencil/pen, roll of quarters etc.) in my hand is not a threat to anyone, at worst it is simply a defense if or when needed.
Not everybody is as good as Pencilman, killing off hoards with his Ticonderoga No. 2s, they use assault weapons with high capacity magazines.
Mass homicide/murder (by definition-four or more?) can be easily accomplished without use of a firearm. It is all in the planning and the amount of evil influence over the perpetrator's human heart. The method, yes it is important but the inspiration/planning is crucial. Without the perp and their plan the method is nothing.
