Hanaguma

From your own article.... Although semi-automatic rifles have become more widely used over the past decade, handguns remain the most common type of weapon used in mass shootings, experts told USA TODAY.

Well obviously a ban on manufacture would create a ban on sale, transfer, etc. The key point is that anything existing before the so-called ban was implemented was not included. So it was a guaranteed exercise in futility. And also why there was little discernable impact. As for Old Joe, he sounds clueless. He said " It (meaning semi automatic weapons) has no, no social redeeming value, zero, none. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profits for gun manufacturers". Guess he is forgetting law enforcement, the military, hunting, sport shooting, varmint removal, etc. Guarantee that he is being guarded by men carrying semi automatic firearms, as well as fully automatic. And people wonder why so-called "gun nuts" are paranoid. When the president is talking so casually about taking away your legally purchased property and telling you that you have no social redeeming value, of course there will be pushback. Rifles of all kinds ARE NOT THE PROBLEM in America.

Happens in Japan a lot as well. I often proofread documents or textbooks or scripts written by Japanese who are thought of as proficient in English. Yet virtually every correction I make is questioned, particularly if it isn't simply grammatically inaccurate but just awkward or unnatural. "But ...-san is fluent" I am told. I learned to not fight it and just let them have their own way. All they want is confirmation, not actual correction.

Was this another "exciting 0-0 draw"? Gag me with a spoon.

I did read the article. Thought that you were making a statement of fact with the question, not just repeating the title of the article, sorry. But even at that, the article does not in any way prove the assertion of the headline. It says the AR is the weapon of choice for the WORST mass murderers. That is a different point altogether, and one I would agree with. However it is also irrelevant because other guns can be used to achieve the same result. Even the article admits that ARs are rarely used in crimes. The rest of the article is fear mongering and heart string tugging without much substance.

It would help if you defined exactly what "people killers" you mean. A semiauto Ruger Mini 14 rifle is OK, but a Colt AR15 copy is not, even if they fire the same bullet from the same magazine? Personally I have no trouble with a waiting period to purchase a firearm (surprise surprise) but I would apply it to all of them equally. 48 hours and a clean rap sheet seems reasonable to me.

From your link; The biggest of the various loopholes in the bill was that it only applied to the specified types of weapons and large-capacity magazines that were created after the bill became law, meaning that there was nothing illegal about owning or selling such a weapon or magazine that had been created before the law was signed. Which is basically what I said, is it not? Anything before the law was grandfathered in.

Really? Criminologists and other researchers found that the ban had little to no effect on firearm deaths or the lethality of gun crimes. Studies have found that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with weapons which are not covered by the AWB, and that assault weapons are less likely to be used in homicides than other weapons. There is tentative evidence that the frequency of mass shootings may have slightly decreased while the ban was in effect, but research is inconclusive, with independent researchers finding conflicting results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

If you mean "Democratic policy making" as in the political party, I agree with you. And it has gotten them nowhere. So then, what ELSE do you think should be banned "if it saves just one child's life"?

You mean the Clinton years ban? That was no ban. People who owned them were allowed to keep them and use them as before. It was a ban on manufacture only.

Irrelevant. The argument was "if it saves just one child's life". It is an emotional argument that has no basis in practical reality or public policy. You could save 1000 children every year by simply closing every swimming pool. Swimming isnt necessary, kids can get exercise in a safer way that is less dangerous.

You can't ban assault weapons either because nobody actually knows what they are. There are too many ill informed people who think that "assault weapon" means machine gun or a super powered rifle. If you were actually serious about safety, you would look at the bigger problem first.

They don't need to drink coke though. Or use playground equipment. Or ride bicycles. All cause death. Besides, nearly a thousand children drown each year. Surely that is enough to ban all swimming pools, both public and private. That is far more than were killed by AR15s.

But why not? If you want to save lives that is an obvious place to start since handguns are far more dangerous than rifles- even so called assault weapons.

The "if it saves just one life" argument is nonsense. Banning swimming pools would save thousands of childrens' lives. As would making helmet use mandatory when they ride in cars. As would banning soft drinks with sugar. Yet we do none of these things because life is a trade-off. Life is full of dangers that cannot be solved by legislation.

Hunting rifles, like cars, come in a variety of configurations depending on their use. Many of the ones on your list are twice as powerful as AR15 types.

Yeah, simple. In spite of the fact that handguns kill far more people than rifles of all types. There are 20 million "AR 15 style" rifles in the US now- how many are used in crimes to justify taking them from the vast majority of responsible owners?

I don't know, probably close to zero. You are making the claim, so find some statistics to back it up. And would you ban just the AR15, or any weapons that resemble it as well?

Now you are changing your claim. First you said "the AR 15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters". Statistics show that you are wrong. NOW you are saying it is the weapon of choice for the deadliest shootings. In that, you are right. But it is irrelevant.

Basic hunting rifles like the Ruger Mini 14 fire the same round as the AR types and can also take a 30 round mag.

Before you go, care to address your error in saying that ARs are the weapon of choice for mass shooters?

Sounds like you are talking about a fully automatic weapon. Those are basically banned already. Again the nomenclature is important. An "assault rifle" is usually defined as a rifle that fires an intermediate round, and can operate either semi auto or full auto mode. An "assault weapon" is more a political term to describe semi automatic rifles only, using certain cosmetic criteria- color, carrying handle, pistol grip, etc. I did some time in the military and at that time we used semi auto Fabrique Nationale rifles that shot full size 7.62mm. I could empty a 20 round mag pretty fast. Smaller rounds probably faster. But that is the same with a bog standard hunting rifle as well.

...and so..... what is your point? Handguns have been the weapon of choice for most murderers in the past century. Your argument is akin to saying that, in order to stop drunk driving, we should ban whisky.

So how does that stat break down? There are two variables- the weapon and the high capacity magazine. Weapons not considered "assault weapons" can use high capacity magazines. Also how would that differentiate from a standard semi auto hunting rifle (except for the potential high capacity magazine)?

How would you say that is different than a hunting rifle or sport rifle that uses the same ammunition?