Gun Control needs to be instituted

Obviously, no one who did not have a part, coming up with this name, could factually answer your question. So I will take the only option available, which is logical deduction. And it is clear that the error of your own logic, is thinking that "military" use, should be the criteria used, for a weapon, sold on the civilian market.

These weapons-- it would be amazing, if you were unaware-- are the most popular weapons, by far, for civilian shooter assaults. That would seem to be a quite reasonable explanation, behind the name "assault weapons," at least to me. Not to you?

 

that's utter nonsense. In 1986 Marxist agitator Josh Sugarmann issued a lie filled propaganda piece telling his fellow travelers in the MSM to deliberately confuse ignorant sheeple by telling them stuff like AR 15s were the same as machine guns etc

 

No, handguns are and always have been the most commonly used type of firearm for mass murders, mass shootings, homicides of all types, suicides, aggravated assaults and armed robberies.

 

the gun banners were hoping stupid people would think "assault" meant criminal assault rather than a military tactic that was the reason for automatic rifles being called "assault rifles"

 

And what point is it, you are trying to make? Whatever it is, I will point out the misinformation, in your phrasing. Your article
is only about a month old, and it speaks about only one handgun, illegally altered, for sure, to give it the ability of a fully automatic weapon. Therefore, correctly speaking, the most that this evidence would support, would be your saying that:

"An automatic weapon has been used in a mass shooting."

So what is the relevance of this? If you had been trying to discredit my source, which had mentioned, incidentally, that no automatic weapon has been used in a mass shooting, the explanation is that my quoted article is from August of 2019. So, now, we can say that one of the assault weapons, used in a mass shooting, was gerry-rigged, to be able to fire automatically. Soooo?


<Snip>

By Josh Gauntt
Published: Apr. 26, 2023 at 2:05 AM EDT
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WBRC) - From the “Aniah’s Law” hearing in Dadeville, we are learning about new evidence that indicates at least one of the handguns involved in the mass shooting had been modified to shoot faster.

An Alabama Law Enforcement Investigator testified one of the handguns was altered with a “Glock switch,” which is illegal.
<End Snip>

 

So you'll stop claiming that full auto weapons haven't been used in mass shootings? I'll accept that.

Do you think that a law adding AR-15s to NFA 1934 would be upheld as Constitutional by this Court?

 

I cannot help but notice, that you provide no evidence, for your, therefore disregarded, assertion.

If you do decide to rise to the challenge of supporting your statement, I will point out that our subject is the name, "assault weapons," which should clearly imply that we are talking about mass shooting attacks on schools and businesses, not about "homicides of all types, suicides, aggravated assaults and armed robberies." I do not argue that point with you, that (non assault weapon) handguns are more commonly employed for those uses, nor would anyone have any reason, especially at this current juncture of the argument, which is focused upon assault weapons. I have, myself, posted that these are not typically used, for run of the mill robberies. I also think that common sense would suggest they are not a leading choice in suicides, either. They are, very clearly, though, the primary choice, for mass shootings. Do you have evidence, to the contrary?

 

Having read Bruen and the cases before it, I cannot see how the NFA-at least as it applies to suppressors, automatic firearms and SBRs -survives

 

the term "assault weapon" was attached long before there were more than a handful of such attacks. the entire purpose was to make morons believe AR 15s were the same as ASSAULT RIFLES and that the term "assault" was criminal assault

 

You didn't give a source prior.

Here. Start counting:

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

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2022

 

I think it is far more self-evident, that the MANUFACTURERS of these weapons, are the ones who have been promoting them, in their advertising, as similar to military assault rifles.

But, even if I were to take your point, what do you pretend to be its ramification? Are you trying to assert that, if the name were changed, or if only it were explained to people that, just because these are called "assault weapons," does not make them military assault rifles-- then people would no longer, at this point, see any reason to ban them?

I ask, because I think the reason, in almost all cases, that people see these as something we don't need, is their use in the never- ending parade of mass shootings, in the news-- NOT because they are confusing them, with military assault rifles.

 

So, something, written by someone who 99.999% of Americans have never heard of, and who, no doubt, does not command the Mainstream media-- unless you had just meant, his fellow "Marxists," in it, in '86?-- makes what, that I'd written, "utter nonsense?" This was your reply, to this post of mine:

DEFinning said: ↑
...
And it is clear that the error of your own logic, is thinking that "military" use, should be the criteria used, for a weapon, sold on the civilian market.

These weapons-- it would be amazing, if you were unaware-- are the most popular weapons, by far, for civilian (mass-) shooter assaults. That would seem to be a quite reasonable explanation, behind the name "assault weapons," at least to me. Not to you?
<End Quote>


So, to be clear, are you claiming that it is utter nonsense, that assault weapons are the guns of choice, for mass shooters?

 

What's interesting is that military rifles aren't designed or intended for mass shootings of unarmed civilians. That's good, right?

 

Yes, the claim is not supported by data, which unsurprisingly you've not even offered.

What is the military use of a semiautomatic AR-15? The military actually uses bolt action rifles, pump and semiautomatic shotguns and revolvers and semiautomatic handguns. Ban those simply because of this?

 

they might not have heard of him but after his circular was disseminated, the MSM went from almost never using the term "assault weapon" to using it constantly
https://www.nraila.org/the-truth-about-so-called-assault-weapons/

 

This has never been anything that I have had any reason to "claim." As I had said, it was only mentioned, incidentally, in something I had quoted, for some other corroboration, it provided (about the difference between assault weapons, and military assault rifles, I believe).

So, then, you admit this incident you raise, serves no argumentative purpose?

 

Did you get through counting yet?

 

I don't know, once again, what point you think you are proving. Military assault weapons are designed, obviously, to be used in combat, against enemy troops. But they are also designed, for killing as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Just because they were designed to be used against other soldiers, does not mean that they would not do the same, to civilians.

So, please come to some relevant point.

 

This is essentially a conspiracy theory argument you use, in ignoring the obvious fact, that we all have our idea of "assault weapons," now firmly established, from their usage in mass shooting, after mass shooting.

 

and the people most to blame for that are the anti gunners who constantly tell crazies that they should use AR 15 style rifles/ we know why you gun banners target them-and it is not out of a desire to increase public safety

 

that is completely untrue. the purpose of military rifles is to suppress movement and inflict casualties. That is why military rifles went to much lighter bullets that are far less lethal than the cartridges used in the WWII main battle rifles and through (USA) the Korean war

 

No, the service rifle is not designed to kill as many as possible in a short amount of time. The M16 was designed to shoot a flatter shooting rounds and to shoot a spread of rounds with reduced recoil to increase the chance of hitting a single target at long range.

I was trained by the Army in the use of the M-16 rifle. I trained others how to employ it. I trained the trainers. I was the training officer for a combat arms battalion. The military use missiles, aerial bombs, rockets, artillery, mortars, and machine guns when they want to kill a lot of people. We never taught that the individual soldier was expected to kill a lot of people in a short time. That's not how military units work.

 

gun banners never can explain why those same assault rifles or the semi auto ones they call "assault weapons" are issued to police officers rather routinely. I know that one of our local townships had a rack full of Nam surplus M16 rifles that they got from a government grant

 

This is a non sequitur reply, and an unintelligible argument, in answer to:


DEFinning said: ↑
So, something, written by someone who 99.999% of Americans have never heard of, and who, no doubt, does not command the Mainstream media-- unless you had just meant, his fellow "Marxists," in it, in '86?-- makes what, that I'd written, "utter nonsense?" This was your reply, to this post of mine:

DEFinning said: ↑
...
And it is clear that the error of your own logic, is thinking that "military" use, should be the criteria used, for a weapon, sold on the civilian market.

These weapons-- it would be amazing, if you were unaware-- are the most popular weapons, by far, for civilian (mass-) shooter assaults. That would seem to be a quite reasonable explanation, behind the name "assault weapons," at least to me. Not to you?
<End Quote>


So, to be clear, are you claiming that it is utter nonsense, that assault weapons are the guns of choice, for mass shooters?
<End Quote>


* LOL--
You have offered no evidence to contradict my statement, or support your own claim. That puts us on an even field, each contesting the other's unsupported opinion. However, when you first challenged my statement, without anything to back up that challenge, I first asked you, for your evidence. And your response, is that it is my job, to get documentation, to refute your mere say- so?
That's not how it works. My statement, btw, is the common impression-- which does not make it right; but your challenging it, certainly doesn't make it wrong, and in greater need of support, than your contention, which goes against the common impression.

FYI, I'm sure I would have little trouble, finding evidence to corroborate my statement. The reason I haven't "yet," done so, is strictly a matter of time. I am a slow typist, and you had buried me, with 8 replies-- many of which, had no practical point-- in less than 2 hours. Over the same period, I received 6 more, in just this thread, from Turtledude. That is a lot of replies, for me. Would that, instead, you could present one, well thought out, and cogent argument, for me to actually respond to, in a proper debate, instead of my needing to start off my replies, asking what point it is, you think you are making. This barrage of noise, from you two, has certainly permitted me no opportunity, to go do research.
DUH.

 

Word salad. Not interesting.