Joe Biden wants to ban all semi auto firearms

Just heard senile joe quoted on the local news saying that there is "no socially redeeming value" for semi auto firearms. Meaning that turd wants to get rid of 85% of all handguns, and half of all rifles and shotguns sold in the last 40 years. If you think that clown only wants to ban "assault weapons" you best think again.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/24/joe-biden-guns-assault-weapons-ban

“The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. It’s just sick. It has no, no social redeeming value, zero, none. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profits for gun manufacturers,” Biden said

that senile POS ignores the fact that every police department in the USA is now issuing those semi auto firearms and the people stuck protecting his life are armed with such firearms

 

I heard him too, but the White House has a habit of explaining what Biden was really trying to say the next day... :/

 

He's been violating the Constitution ever since he was elected. Why stop now?

 

Didn't the Colorado Springs shooter have an AR-15? I think Biden wants Congress to ban assault weapons before Dems become the minority. Not sure how that is going to work out. Senate Republicans can filibuster any bill passed by the House.

 

"Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22–0.39)."
https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Ab...S_mass_shooting_deaths_associated_with.2.aspx

 

what's an assault weapon-senile Joe thinks all semi autos are assault weapons

 

that nonsense has been debunked so many times it is funny you stick with it.

 

The Colorado nut case's firearm description is now a 'long gun'. Does that mean 'long guns' will now also be targeted?

 

The Department of Justice, people who actually tracked the statistics and did a deep dive into the numbers, disagrees that it had a measurable impact. But that's some cool propaganda you've got there.

 

his study didn't take into account what weapons were used before during and after. And can anyone rationally claim that an AR 15 without a flash hider or an adjustable stock is less "deadly" than one with those two cosmetic features?

 

Did have access to more AR-15s every year reduce the the number of casualties, because we had more AR-15s every single year?

Of course, no AR-15s were used in a mass shooting in the 30 years prior to the ban or during the ban itself.

 

In my view, the biggest error in the study is that it doesn't measure deaths. The study showed that there was no measurable impact on the overall firearm homicides in America. It always strikes me as hollow when people claim, "this type of gun is used in this specific type of homicide," so they want to ban it. But, they ignore the fact that when they did ban it, the results showed that the same number of people were killed with firearms, and the people doing the killing either ignored the law (crazy thought!), already owned the firearm prior to the ban or used another firearm.

I will never understand the argument that we need to take away the right of a person to use the firearm they believe is most practical for their defense. And, the people making these arguments are also often the same people who want to reduce police budgets and reduce prosecutions of criminals. "Tommy is just a meth addict; he's a peaceful criminal who shouldn't be prosecuted," while ignoring the sheer number of robberies/murders that take place because many addicts will literally do anything to get their next fix while going through withdrawal.

 

Prove that there was no change in the gun homicide rate during the ban.

 

Cosmetic? So why would gun manufacturers add features to a gun that have no functional purpose?

 

I guess you don't understand how things work. The AR 15 has many common parts with the military contract rifles. So those parts including the stocks, flash hiders, and the part that includes a bayonet lug are far cheaper then ones purpose made for the civilian market. and many of those things were banned because military rifles had them, not because they make the weapon more prone to be used criminally. This is what happens when dishonest scum in office try to ban stuff for reasons that have no objective merit

 

You are the one claiming that the unconstitutional bullshit did something useful. Not our duty to prove it was worthless. Why don't you tell us why the cosmetic features mattered. and given there were millions upon millions of normal capacity magazines in circulation, they were easily obtained when that ten year nonsense was in place

 

The number of mass shooting deaths went down during the ban and increased after the ban ended and your side seems unable to present a strong argument against the effectiveness of the ban. So I think a ban is worth another shot. We don't have time to resolve every little uncertainty. Lives are at stake. What are normal capacity magazines? If the features of assault weapons are cosmetic then why does the military value them? Do they just want soldiers to have scary looking guns?

 

Given that all existing "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" were still in the hands of citizens, they were legal to transfer and perfectly functional AR-15s were sold throughout the decade of the ban, what was the causal effect reducing mass shooting deaths? Mother Jones showed 14 mass shootings in the decade prior to the ban and 13 during the ban.

What the military considers useful in a combat environment like bayonet lugs, flash hiders and collapsible stocks would be mere decorations for the purposes of a mass shooting of unarmed targets at close range.

There were no mass shootings by civilians using AR-15s in the thirty years before the ban; likewise none during the ban and three (the first in 2012) in the decade after the ban, after millions more were sold.

 

still spouting that nonsense? the rest of your silly points have been answered ad nauseum

 

Well, like most in the anti gun clack, he can’t define what constitutes an Assault weapon, so going after semiautos is next best thing and it has a bonus of including semi auto pistols.
Next, go after doubleaction weapons, but I doubt he could distinguish a double action pistol vs a semi auto or a single action.

 

They claim it is to stop crime knowing full well it won't. and if they pass this crap its a win win for them/. If crime decreases for any reason-they will say more gun restrictions will stop more crime. If crime doesn't go down, they will say because the restrictions didn't go far enough

 

The Columbine shooting happened during the ban.

 

The ban on so-called assault weapons had zero affect on mass shootings.

 

No one knows what an "assault weapon" is. 50 states have dozens of different definitions.

 

as much a chance of that happening as Trump getting the great Trump wall of China