One of the biggest lies in the current political divide

Yet there is no hard evidence that the marketing has anything to do with the few cases of AR 15s being used in mass shootings. That gun banners constantly tell people that they are is far more influential given that the advertisement of AR 15s is basically limited to gun magazines-in other words people who already know about firearms. You don't see ads on TV for AR 15s etc. What you do see on TV is the anti gun talking heads constantly telling nutcases that AR 15s are what they need for mass murder

 

~ If things go as they should every legal citizen in the USA will be able to own and carry a gun.
I suggest as before when this happens there will be a marked reduction in gun violence, armed robbery, carjacking etc.

~ Not exactly overnight , but Australia has quite quickly restricted and/or banned most gun ownership rights.

 

They're not happy unless they are in control of everything. Truth be told, they are fearful of anyone who won't march to their tune. The damn fascists! And they call law-abiding gun owners paranoid? Of course, they want to confiscate your guns. The AR 15, and the other "assault style weapons" are just the start.

 

The other place ...They are not of this
Guns will never be banned.
The Democratic Party knows this. They simply play along, and pander to the Looney Tune crowd to get their votes.

 

"The family of Eugene Stoner, the creator of the AR-15, a rifle that has been used in previous mass shootings, said that he never intended the gun for civilian use and that he never owned one himself....

" 'Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,' the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. 'He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.' "
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356

But follow the money:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Gun makers have taken in more than $1 billion from selling AR-15-style guns over the past decade, at times marketing them as a way for young men to prove their masculinity, even as the number of mass shootings increases, according to a House investigation unveiled Wednesday."
https://apnews.com/article/gun-manufacturers-ar-15-461e6729bef5ef5f8af0f128fbfc40be

 

BFD-irrelevant. and your title is different than what the comments attributed to Stoner actually said. His design was fully automatic. Try again.

The leftwing drivel of an article that you posted doesn't even attempt to prove that the rare mass murders committed by people using AR 15s can even be connected to the advertising (which tends to be limited to gun related magazines). Rather its anti gun extremists in the press telling all the nutcases to use an AR 15

 

The AR-15 listed in this statement was the fully automatic precursor to the fully automatic M-16. It's not referring to the current semiautomatic version that have been sold to civilians since 1964.

 

Many gun banners don't understand that, or if they do, ignore that obvious fact. People design firearms for several reasons but a main one-especially someone employed by a for profit company, is to make money. Nothing guarantees a gun designed and his employer better income than having that firearm adopted by militaries with huge budgets

 

"We know that assault weapon bans work because data proves it. For the decade that the federal assault weapons ban was in effect from 1994 to 2004, 89 people died in 12 massacres. But in the decade after the ban expired from 2004 to 2014, over 300 people were shot and killed in 34 mass shootings. That’s a staggering 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in fatalities....

"We know that regulating assault weapons can save lives: during the time the assault weapon ban was in effect, there was a 37 percent decline in gun massacres and a 70 percent decline in the percentage of assault weapons traced to gun crimes. Law enforcement organizations have long supported laws prohibiting assault weapons because the agencies charged with protecting the public are effectively being 'outgunned' by militarized civilians and criminals with easy access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines."
https://www.bradyunited.org/fact-sheets/what-are-assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-magazines

There is good reason to be concerned about such firearms. Who is claiming that they are fully automatic (that seems like a straw man)? I could make some point here about bump stocks but I'm sure gun advocates here would use that as an excuse to go off on some tangent in order to divert attention away from the above stats. So let's focus on the most important points. While the assault weapons ban was in effect there was a decrease in the number of gun massacres: Lives were saved. The number of gun massacres increased after the ban expired.

 

From 1984 to 1994 there were no AR-15s used in a mass shooting. During the "ban", even though every existing "assault weapon", including AR-15s, were grandfathered, and new post-ban AR-15s were sold legally, there weren't any AR-15s used by a civilian in a mass shooting. For the ten years after the ban, there were three mass shootings by civilians using AR-15s, and that first one wasn't until 2012, eight years after the "ban" expired.

For the decade of prior to the ban, there were four mass shootings where an "assault weapon" was used. During the ban there were two such shootings. When you look at the raw data rather than the propaganda you can see the true extent of the problem.

Given that all existing "assault weapons" were grandfathered and new AR-15s were sold legally, what did the "ban" do? Your 37% noticeably doesn't say "37% decline in gun massacres using 'assault weapons'".

By "law enforcement organizations", you mean the leaders of those organizations who serve at the whim of civic leaders. They have to toe the line. The Thin Blue Line? Not so much.

• 86 percent feel the currently proposed legislation would have no effect or a negative effect on improving officer safety (this was in regards to magazine capacity restrictions)
  
• Similarly, 92 percent feel that banning semi-automatic firearms, or “assault weapons,” would have no effect or a negative effect on reducing violent crime

https://www.police1.com/police-prod...out-us-gun-control-policies-7ChE5oH8N9pbN12A/

There was no causal effect. The "ban" didn't take away any guns and the number of AR-15s grew every year. The most commonly used firearm in mass shootings is a handgun, which wasn't "banned" at all. Prior to 2012 the two worst mass shootings were committed with handguns.

AR-15s and similar rifles are bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes. The current AWB bills don't 'ban' any guns, either; if such a law was put into place we'd have 30 million ARs out there.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

 

Stoner didn't design the AR15 currently sold everywhere in the US.
Colt did.

 

See below.
Soundly explain how the 1994 AWB prevented any mass shootings.
Soundly explain how its expiration caused the mass shootings since.

 

not this discredited crap again. How was banning a flash hider or a bayonet lug relevant to anything. Are you unaware that the banned guns were slightly modified and were able to be sold as if the ban never took place. Your data is nonsense
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.

A 2004 study for the Justice Department found that the ban’s impact on gun violence was mixed, at best, because of exemptions written in the law; if the ban were renewed, the “effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”


https://fee.org/articles/the-federa...on-assault-weapons-didnt-reduce-gun-violence/

 

How do you figure?

 

"Results: The FAWB [Federal Assault Weapons Ban] resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths, and number of gun injuries. We estimate that the FAWB prevented 11 public mass shootings during the decade the ban was in place. A continuation of the FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1139 people."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33783360/

 

Laughable, unsupportable, mindless nonsense, as the 1994 AWB did absolutely nothing to reduce availability of 'assault weapons'.

 

There were 4 mass shootings in the decade prior to the AWB. The AWB grandfathered all existing "assault weapons". Fully functional AR-15s were legal for sale. In your words, how did a toothless law do everything that your cited study claimed?

 

the anti gun claims never bother to explain what sort of weapons were used in those alleged increased mass shootings after the unconstitutional clinton bullshit sunset

 

There were 17 mass shootings in the decade prior to the "ban". There were 16 during the "ban". Was there any expectation that the number of mass shootings would increase by 65% in the decade following that of 1984 to 1994? The average number of deaths went from 8.7 per shooting to 6.3 per shooting before/during the "ban".

Notice that there is no claim of a causal effect. Their claim of 30 extra mass shootings from 2005 to 2019 is two per year, and we had three or fewer public mass shootings in 5 of the 10 years after the ban. There were no "assault weapons" of any type used in mass shootings in 2005, 2008-2010 and 2014.

 

as I noted, the anti gun movement is the most dishonest political movement in the USA

 

Because we had a democrat candidate both election cycles calling for gun confiscation

 

Take your time finding them say they want to confiscate all guns.

 

that's nonsensical. If a candidate wants to confiscate AR 15s because he claims it is to prevent the few murders involving those guns then he also MUST BELIEVE THAT

1) handguns need to be banned because handguns are used in 15X more murders than all rifles

2) rifles that perform the same as the AR 15 must be banned as well

such people are GUN confiscators even if they don't call for confiscation of everything right now

 

You mean "he must believe_______________" <==insert talking point.

I have not heard them say they want to confiscate all guns, but if you can quote them, them please do so.

 

It is interesting to note that “progressive Democrats” want to enact more and more gun restrictions. Yet, their woke DA’s refuse to prosecute gun violations. Why pass laws that your law enforcement attorneys refuse to enforce?