Washington set to become 10th state to ban assault weapons sales

[BangkokReady]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve got some shocking news for you.

 

People have very strong feelings about the safety of the children.

That isn't news for anyone.  But what does that have to do with whether this ban will reduce school/mass shootings?

 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There are many alternatives to gun control beyond banning all guns.

Sure, but that doesn't change the ineffectiveness of this ban.

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

That isn't news for anyone.  But what does that have to do with whether this ban will reduce school/mass shootings?

 

Sure, but that doesn't change the ineffectiveness of this ban.

Agreed. This "ban" does not remove one single gun from one single person.  

[BangkokReady]

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Agreed. This "ban" does not remove one single gun from one single person.  

Not only that, but there'll probably still be a load of "non-scary" guns with wooden stocks that people will be able to use for mass shootings.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

No.  I simply pointed out that you are wrong.

 

I didn't dislike your answer.  It just doesn't make any sense.  The fact that airlines are able to keep guns off of their airplanes, means nothing for keeping guns out other businesses.

 

I notice that you have not been able to explain or justify your answer further.

I don’t need to.

 

A private business enacting a no gun rule, which would not infringe any constitutional rights, is in my opinion, good business the clear majority of Americans do not own guns.

 

Businesses enacting such rules would make the logistics of taken your gun into town a little awkward and thereby discourage people from doing so.

 

Did you know criminals don’t follow rules, or have I got explain that to you.

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Agreed. This "ban" does not remove one single gun from one single person.  

But what it does do is demonstrate a political will to act and it tests the response of voters.

 

Which is why the pro-gun side of the argument are getting so upset about it.

 

 

 

 

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t need to.

 

A private business enacting a no gun rule, which would not infringe any constitutional rights, is in my opinion, good business the clear majority of Americans do not own guns.

 

Businesses enacting such rules would make the logistics of taken your gun into town a little awkward and thereby discourage people from doing so.

 

Did you know criminals don’t follow rules, or have I got explain that to you.

Mass shooters don't follow rules, nor do other criminals who intend to use a gun to carry out a crime, so simply having a rule will not stop them.  (In fact, it makes it easier for them as there are less guns around to stop them.)

 

I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to grasp.

[BangkokReady]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But what it does do is demonstrate a political will to act and it tests the response of voters.

That, or it deceives voters without actually addressing the problem.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Mass shooters don't follow rules, nor do other criminals who intend to use a gun to carry out a crime, so simply having a rule will not stop them.  (In fact, it makes it easier for them as there are less guns around to stop them.)

 

I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to grasp.

Then remove their weapon of choice.

 

 

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

5 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Mass shooters don't follow rules, nor do other criminals who intend to use a gun to carry out a crime, so simply having a rule will not stop them.  (In fact, it makes it easier for them as there are less guns around to stop them.)

 

I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to grasp.

Then remove their weapon of choice.

If anyone had evidence that the name or appearance of the AR-15 played a part in the likelihood of a mass shooting occurring, it would be very interesting.

 

But I would imagine that it's the shooting part that they want to do, rather than using an AR-15.  If there is no AR-15, they will simply opt for a different weapon.

 

The Columbine High School massacre took place without the use of any high powered rifles.  The two shooters used 9mm and shotguns.

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

If anyone had evidence that the name or appearance of the AR-15 played a part in the likelihood of a mass shooting occurring, it would be very interesting.

 

But I would imagine that it's the shooting part that they want to do, rather than using an AR-15.  If there is no AR-15, they will simply opt for a different weapon.

 

The Columbine High School massacre took place without the use of any high powered rifles.  The two shooters used 9mm and shotguns.

24 years ago and since then the weapon of choice has been?

 

Ask a cop which they’d rather go up against.

[Will B Good]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

24 years ago and since then the weapon of choice has been?

 

Ask a cop which they’d rather go up against.

My money is on the answer being.........knife

[BKKBike09]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There are many alternatives to gun control beyond banning all guns.

I'm curious. Such as?

 

[Disclaimer: I like shooting sports, I own various firearms, but I also have no problem with a ban on civilian ownership of semi-automatic high-capacity long guns in any calibre with more ballistic punch than, say, .22LR.]

[Hanaguma]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

24 years ago and since then the weapon of choice has been?

 

Ask a cop which they’d rather go up against.

The weapon of choice is a very limited number of crimes, and which could easily be replaced by another if needed.  No mass shooter ever said, "damn, I can't get an AR, guess I will just go home and watch tv".  Meanwhile, the legal and responsible owners of 20 million plus guns get punished.

 

Yeah, I can see the logic there...

[Chomper Higgot]

33 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

I'm curious. Such as?

 

[Disclaimer: I like shooting sports, I own various firearms, but I also have no problem with a ban on civilian ownership of semi-automatic high-capacity long guns in any calibre with more ballistic punch than, say, .22LR.]

More effective and mandatory background checks.

Denial of guns to people with a history of violence for example a citation for violence or assault.

 

Denial of guns to people with mental health issues that are associated with violence.

 

Prompt removal of guns from people who develop mental illness and or commit acts of violence.

 

Criminal liability for allowing minors unsupervised access to guns and ammunition, including guns and ammo not under lock and key if minors are home alone.

 

Gun exclusion zones within schools and colleges, carrying a gun in the zone being regarded as prima face threat of lethal intent.

 

And disband the NRA.

 

Would be a start.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

50 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The weapon of choice is a very limited number of crimes, and which could easily be replaced by another if needed.  No mass shooter ever said, "damn, I can't get an AR, guess I will just go home and watch tv".  Meanwhile, the legal and responsible owners of 20 million plus guns get punished.

 

Yeah, I can see the logic there...

Once again, it’s a very limited number of crimes that is driving the public discussion on gun controls.

 

Nobody is punishing responsible gun owners, you made that bit up.

[Hanaguma]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Once again, it’s a very limited number of crimes that is driving the public discussion on gun controls.

 

Nobody is punishing responsible gun owners, you made that bit up.

Not through lack of trying. There seems to be a very vocal segment of people who cry,"you don't NEED an AR15" and would be happy to see them confiscated.  A ban on sale or transfer is just the first step.  

 

Be honest, you would be very happy if all the AR style guns could somehow be removed from peoples' hands, wouldn't you?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Not through lack of trying. There seems to be a very vocal segment of people who cry,"you don't NEED an AR15" and would be happy to see them confiscated.  A ban on sale or transfer is just the first step.  

 

Be honest, you would be very happy if all the AR style guns could somehow be removed from peoples' hands, wouldn't you?

It would not upset me one bit.

[BangkokReady]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

24 years ago and since then the weapon of choice has been?

 

Ask a cop which they’d rather go up against.

You can deflect and change the exact point of discussion all you want, it doesn't alter the fact that this will do little to reduce mass shootings and is largely hot air.

 

It will be interesting to see how many rifles capable of doing the exact same damage, but without the scary black metal body, remain available to would be mass shooters after the ban has taken place.  I imagine there will be plenty, unless they are banning all semi-automatic rifles, leaving only bolt action.

[KhunLA]

28 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

You can deflect and change the exact point of discussion all you want, it doesn't alter the fact that this will do little to reduce mass shootings and is largely hot air.

 

It will be interesting to see how many rifles capable of doing the exact same damage, but without the scary black metal body, remain available to would be mass shooters after the ban has taken place.  I imagine there will be plenty, unless they are banning all semi-automatic rifles, leaving only bolt action.

The law does ban detachable mags/clips.  So you'd be limited to 5-7 ish rounds, as my previous owned rifles held.  They use to sell a Marlin model 60 / 22LR, held 18 rounds, barrel fed, no mag necessary.

 

Those rifles, you could pre-load speed loaders, so adding 5-7 more took seconds.  

 

Of course the manufacturer could also simple redesign the weapon.

 

All kind of mute, since few people are killed with rifles vs hand guns.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, transam said:

No need to, we would look like fruitcakes, as are the gun lovers, here....

I wasn't aware that you have seen me to know that .

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

I'm curious. Such as?

 

[Disclaimer: I like shooting sports, I own various firearms, but I also have no problem with a ban on civilian ownership of semi-automatic high-capacity long guns in any calibre with more ballistic punch than, say, .22LR.]

Try killing a deer with a .22. It would only wound, so are you advocating for cruel deaths for animals?

What about farmers having to put down an injured cow? you think a .22 could kill one of those?

[Tug]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try killing a deer with a .22. It would only wound, so are you advocating for cruel deaths for animals?

What about farmers having to put down an injured cow? you think a .22 could kill one of those?

My old 22hornet would do the job just fine (massive) cartridge behind it but back in those days I’d always use my 30 ot 6 bolt action I did modify one of my gas operated 22s to fire full auto this is 50+ years ago long before this madness all of that beeing said imo all semi auto long guns should be banned and fazed out for civilian use I’d leave the short guns alone they have a legitimate use for home defense imo also I’ve had a change of heart I don’t hunt the critters anymore haven’t hunted in 40 years now I delight when I see them in the wild

[BKKBike09]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try killing a deer with a .22. It would only wound, so are you advocating for cruel deaths for animals?

What about farmers having to put down an injured cow? you think a .22 could kill one of those?

Of course you should use an appropriate calibre depending on the purpose. However I was quite specific in saying that I don't see any civilian need for semi-automatic high-capacity long guns. 

 

People have hunted for more than a century using bolt-action long guns. What's the problem using, say, a 5-round mag bolt action for hunting any sort of game, or for humanely killing an injured farm animal. If you can't do any of these things with a single round, you'd best not be using a gun.

 

Same for long-distance accuracy shooting. I'll take a bolt action .308 over a .223 AR platform any day.

 

[herfiehandbag]

On 4/20/2023 at 6:35 PM, KhunLA said:

Why do you have the NEED to shoot a deer?

... I don't, even stated it earlier, and implied in other threads.

 

Has a deer ever hunted you for your meat?

... ????

 

You can buy the deer meat in a supermarket.

... that would defeat the purpose, and 25kg of free venison works for many.

I rather suspect that the attraction is the dressing up, "accessorising" and "handling the weapon" and the actual kill.

 

Oh they may cut off a couple of "juicy steaks" of venison but I suspect the remaining 24 kg is left to rot.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

I rather suspect that the attraction is the dressing up, "accessorising" and "handling the weapon" and the actual kill.

 

Oh they may cut off a couple of "juicy steaks" of venison but I suspect the remaining 24 kg is left to rot.

Reckon you've never had good venison sausage.  

 

I don't hunt, and as stated elsewhere, IF I had to kill my 'protein', I'd be on a seafood diet.  My brother hunts, but leaves the butchering to me, used to.   Yea, weird.  We're opposites, I won't shoot it, but he can't butcher it ????

 

There are millions of yanks, that fill their frig/freezer with venison every year.  That alone probably saves more lives, yes, human lives, than are lost during mass 'school' shootings.

 

Check that (edit) ALL MASS SHOOTINGS, with few exceptions, per year.

 

Deer & cars don't mix well, and hundred+ people die every year when they meet.   Amazing stat on number of deer, number of accidents, and number of deer hunted/killed (legally).

 

Educate yourself.  More lives are saved with firearms, than lost in mass shooting, per year, with few exceptions.   

 

Gang bangers & cheating spouse  .... oh well, have at it, there's a price to pay, your choice.

 

A few snapshots, with source shown, if wanting to enlighten yourself:

 

 

Now imagine 6 million more deer out there, with just 1% wanting to cross the road.

 

Obviously you've never driven a night in the USA.

 

With few exceptions, it seems deer kill more people every year, than killed in 'mass shootings'

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811504/mass-shooting-victims-in-the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/

Edited April 22, 2023 by KhunLA

[billd766]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try killing a deer with a .22. It would only wound, so are you advocating for cruel deaths for animals?

What about farmers having to put down an injured cow? you think a .22 could kill one of those?

As for the deer, why does anybody have the need to hunt and kill deers in the first place?

 

How many farmers keep an AR15, just in case a cow gets injured?

 

IMHO they would most probably call the vet to try to save the valuable animal, and in the worst case the vet will have the proper equipment to put the animal down.

[herfiehandbag]

4 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Reckon you've never had good venison sausage.  

 

I don't hunt, and as stated elsewhere, IF I had to kill my 'protein', I'd be on a seafood diet.  My brother hunts, but leaves the butchering to me, used to.   Yea, weird.  We're opposites, I won't shoot it, but he can't butcher it ????

 

There are millions of yanks, that fill their frig/freezer with venison every year.  That alone probably saves more lives, yes, human lives, than are lost during mass 'school' shootings.

 

Check that (edit) ALL MASS SHOOTINGS, with few exceptions, per year.

 

Deer & cars don't mix well, and hundred+ people die every year when they meet.   Amazing stat on number of deer, number of accidents, and number of deer hunted/killed (legally).

 

Educate yourself.  More lives are saved with firearms, than lost in mass shooting, per year, with few exceptions.   

 

Gang bangers & cheating spouse  .... oh well, have at it, there's a price to pay, your choice.

 

A few snapshots, with source shown, if wanting to enlighten yourself:

 

 

Now imagine 6 million more deer out there, with just 1% wanting to cross the road.

 

Obviously you've never driven a night in the USA.

 

With few exceptions, it seems deer kill more people every year, than killed in 'mass shootings'

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811504/mass-shooting-victims-in-the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/

Goodness, I thought that the pool of ludicrous arguments for allowing private, effectively unrestricted ownership of what are really military battlefield weapons had been exhausted but you have just written a new chapter!

 

Tall about linking entirely unconnected statistics!