Joe Biden wants to ban all semi auto firearms

Or, more simply, features that are useful in a military context are mere decoration in a mass shooting context.

 

There is your answer[/QUOTE]
My lord….wow. You DO know it has to pass in the Senate too, right??? So having passed in the House means jack schitt since it won’t pass in the Senate. To further my point…if he can’t do it before Jan. He sure a schitt won’t get it done once the Repubs take control of the House.

There is your answer.

 

Provide stats from the FBI to back your claim. The FBI uniform crime report is the go to for this sort of data. Cough it up or stop making a claim that there is data.

Indeed, lives are at stake. Which is why we refuse to allow you to disarm us.

A normal capacity magazine? On what firearm? For a semi automatic modern sporting rifle including all AR and AK variants and clones? 30 rounds is standard. FAL? 20. Most 9mm pistols with a full size grip? Are going to be double stack mags and pack anywhere from 15-17 rounds as standard. The smaller concealable models are going to pack 8-10.
A 1911 in .45? 8, 5-6 if its a pocket model. A 2011? Double stacked so normally 10-12 minimum in .45, far more if 9mm. A mag fed shotgun? 5-10.
A civilian version of the SAW? Its belt fed, how many belts do you have to clip together?

Why does the military have things that improve the ergonomics of the gun so it can be swapped soldier to soldier with minor, soldier performed, very swift changes to make it fit the new guy? No clue.
Why does the military want a bayonet lug when traditionally the only group doing a bayonet charge would be soldiers or militia and guns have had an option for a bayonet since they had guns? No clue.
Why does the military, who performs functions involving shooting a firearm alot and often has missions at night where they wear NVGs, want a flash hider? No clue.
Why does the military want a grenade launcher? No clue.

 

Ergonomics are not mere decoration. Preventing your vision from being dazzled by a spear of fire coming out the end something held less than 2 feet from your face is also not decoration.
The bayonet lug also functions, though IDK why you would want that on an AR in the first place. They're a bit flimsy for all that really.

All of those features are useful to the lawful, civilian, shooter. Whether for hunting, self defense, defense of others, or defense of nation.

Besides: No citizen is required to demonstrate a need to exercise a right. I'm sorry that bothers you.

 

Logistics. A one size fits all solution is cheaper and easier to maintain an accurate inventory than requiring multiple sizes. It also allows a single soldier to vary the LOP (length of pull) depending upon how many layers are worn.

The bayonet lug is attached to the front sight base, and the tooling for that hasn't changed much, if any, in 60 years or more. The front sight base not only includes the bayonet lug but the front sight post (where the front sight is attached), the gas block, the forward sling loop and also serves to hold the front ends of the handgun to the rifle. Why fix what isn't broken?

Not all units have access to NVGs, and you want something to cover the threads on the end of the barrel. The bog standard M16A2 birdcage flash hider is a cheap, know solution. Newer versions also also the quick attachment of certain silencers, which the military is starting to embrace.

Because an underbarrel grenade can throw a grenade further than the soldier can.

 

The no clue was a sarcasm sign post. The reasoning is in each sentence or self explanatory.

 

the bayonet lug is part of a piece that helps hold the forearm on. makers use the military surplus parts since they are cheaper than making one where the lug is ground off

 

unconstitutional and why do you want to turn millions of gun owners into potential felons. Have no idea how many NORMAL capacity magazines I own and I doubt a diligent search of my home and cars would uncover all. You want to ruin peoples' lives for merely owning something. Maybe you should be the one to arrest someone for having a NCM and tell them they are going to prison and they can never own a gun again.

 

I know that. so why the comment. the fact that it has passed the house shows how hateful democrats are to gun rights. And we know that senile lame duck Biden is not going to get it passed but it shows how dems think. And if he is able to appoint a couple supreme court justices, our gun rights could be washed away by people who think like Quotamayor or that other affirmative action pick Biden made

 

Not sure which comment you're referring to but if it's about the Senate not having the votes....well...that comment should be self-explanatory by now.
Depends on which justices he could replace. If he replaces a lib justice with a lib justice then no worries. Barring unforeseen deaths, who of the conservative justices are ready to retire within next two years? I'm guessing none.

 

LOL. Being a fact and being cherry picked are not mutually exclusive.

 

Fail. The FBI UCR does NOT have specific data about mass shooting deaths going back to 1994. I've already linked to a study which shows that mass shooting deaths declined during the AWB.

 

Was increasing the number of AR-15s the causal effect?

 

Your study has already been discussed and refuted by other posters.

Show, using the verifiable data, your point.

Rucker here has given you a strong hint as to why you're laughably off base. Please take the hint.

 

Then link to the post where it was shown that mass shooting deaths did NOT decline during the ban.

 

If you want to attribute any decline in mass shooting deaths to the AWB, you have to show the causal effect. The number of AR-15s increased during the ban. Was that the causal effect?

 

You can click the little arrow on these and explore around for yourself.

 

Thought so. I don't think you even bothered to read what the study said before claiming it had been "refuted". Just like you didn't even bother to research what kind of data the FBI UCR actually contains.

 

Buddy, you gotta get up pretty early in the morning to pump out a study on the subject of gun control I haven't heard of or read before.
Moreover: I've linked you to the posts which point out the issues.

Further: The FBI holds uniform crime stats. I'm asking you to prove your assertion based on uniform crime stats. If you can't do that, you cannot prove a causal connection.

Still further: Rucker has pointed out already the issue with your 'logic'. I wonder why you refuse to answer?

 

You haven't linked to any posts which refute the study. The FBI UCR does not have specific data going back to 1994 about mass shooting deaths despite your claim that the "FBI uniform crime report is the go to for this sort of data". You were wrong before and you are still wrong.

 

The UCR is the go to for data about crimes committed.
If you're not finding it in the UCR at that time, its because it wasn't tracked. If it wasn't tracked in the UCR, there is no way to verify the data in that study, 1st, and as stated by other posters: Your study does not claim a causal link, nor can you point to one, and basic logic Rucker has already pointed out shows you why.

 

According to Mother Jones there were 18 mass shootings in the decade before the ban and 16 during the ban. Did adding tens of thousands more AR-15s reduce that number of mass shootings?

 

have you figured out that you have to determine which guns were used in mass shootings before, during and after the clinton gun ban in order to be having your love affair with the ban. For example if shootings went way up after the ban but were guns not affected by the ban, your argument completely fails

and you have never ever told me how the ban actually decreased the number of semi auto weapons available for the billion normal capacity magazines that were floating around.

Many police departments took advantage of these offers. Magazines made before the ban were perfectly legal to sell to private citizens. Magazines of normal capacity made during the ban had to be stamped with FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY (I have about 50 of those that I bought at a huge discount in late 2004) Glock and Beretta Dealers went to Police Departments that used their handguns and offered the department brand spanking NEW LE ONLY MAGS AT A 1-1 TRADE for their old mags. SO Police Departments got brand new magazines-often better made and updated and the dealers got used pre ban mags they could sell for inflated prices (thanks to the Democrats) to the private citizenry.

 

How many AR-15s? The population grew by tens of mllions so it doesn't necessarily mean that AR-15s were more available to the average person (even if there was an increase).

 

The Brady Bill and the clinton gun ban sold millions of guns that never would have been sold but for that idiocy