4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Why do you, people, keep repeating the same BS.

Assault Weapons, if you actually knew what one is, is not readily available, or affordable to most folks, and nobody for decades has used one in the USA in any mass shooting.

Most murders are by handguns, not long rifles.

Many think the AR-15 style is an assault rifle,as it can be made full auto, but like you mentioned, it's very hard to obtain one that way. The regular AR-15 is the same as any other semi auto, besides the larger capacity magazines, which really aren't necessary and should be eliminated.

3 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Many think the AR-15 style is an assault rifle,as it can be made full auto, but like you mentioned, it's very hard to obtain one that way. The regular AR-15 is the same as any other semi auto, besides the larger capacity magazines, which really aren't necessary and should be eliminated.

All weapons are assault weapons when used to assault civilians. The term “assault weapon” isn’t even a term used in the US military. It’s just a term used to describe a shape and incite fear. Quite silly actually.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by novacova

2 minutes ago, novacova said:

All weapons are assault weapons when used to assault civilians. The term “assault weapon” isn’t even a term used in the US military. It’s just a term used to incite fear. Quite silly actually.

Yeah, I guess you could say Assault Screwdriver and it would be correct for some. The term is just overused because Assault Rifle really means a full auto weapon, which no one ever uses against American civilians in America. Assault weapon is semi auto rifles like the AR-15. Assault Rifle is the same with capability to be switched from semi to full auto.

18 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

It is interesting that in the last 55 years, gun homicides have gone up 63%. while over the same period, gun suicides have gone up 153%, or well over twice as fast.

But it's the guns don't cha know.

The lethality trap is why it's the guns.
Data shows 90% of all attempted suicide survivors never try again.
They get help and live.
Guns remove that second chance.
A temporary crisis shouldn't mean a permanent death.

https://hsph.harvard.edu/research/means-matter/faqs/

Edited June 4Jun 4 by LosLobo

27 minutes ago, novacova said:

All weapons are assault weapons when used to assault civilians. The term “assault weapon” isn’t even a term used in the US military. It’s just a term used to describe a shape and incite fear. Quite silly actually.

"Assault Weapon" is a legal term/definition. Most use incorrectly, as stated, to describe a semi automatic firearm.

'Assault Weapon' must be able to be fire on fully or selectable fully automatic. Continuous firing until you release the trigger.

Ignorant people that really shouldn't comment in firearm debates, use the term 'assault weapon / rifle' wrong. Come off as ignorant as the truly are.

"Assault Weapons" were actually banned via the 'Brady Bill', but that ban expired, and since they are so expensive, and hard to acquire and keep, the ban was not extended by Congress.

Probably only FFL licensed collectors, like I used to be, would only be the folks with more money than common sense, and actually buy one.

@gamb00ler

Edited June 4Jun 4 by KhunLA

Rising up against tyranny with small and automatic weapons only works if you also have tanks, aircraft and a navy.

Otherwise the right to bear arms is useless.

26 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

'Assault Weapon' must be able to be fire on fully or selectable fully automatic. Continuous firing until you release the trigger

Wrong again, as usual.

Assault weapons are a category of semi-automatic firearms designed for quick firing and military applications. They are legally defined by state and local laws through specific features, such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds, and are distinct from fully automatic military assault rifles. [1, 2, 3]

Key Characteristics and Functionality

• Semi-Automatic Fire: Assault weapons fire one bullet per trigger pull, but reload automatically. [1]

• High-Capacity Magazines: Many are equipped with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, allowing for a high volume of fire without reloading. [1, 2]

• Military Aesthetic: These civilian-legal firearms are modeled after battlefield weapons, often sharing high muzzle velocities and rapid rates of fire. [1, 2]

18 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

In 1980, the percentage of adults living in households with guns peaked at nearly 54%. Over the last few decades, this figure has declined and plateaued, with current estimates showing about 35% to 43% of households possessing at least one firearm."

But it's the guns don't cha know

vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf

Data from 2021 is not current.
Since then, pandemic-era insecurity, civil unrest, and Trump's rhetoric promoting fears of future gun restrictions have driven a surge in firearm ownership.
According to recent data, households with guns are approaching 1980 levels—roughly 46% today versus about 54% in 1980.

But it's the guns, don't cha know.

Yes—there are now close to half a billion of them in circulation.

https://ammo.com/articles/how-many-guns-in-the-us

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

Yeah, I guess you could say Assault Screwdriver and it would be correct for some. The term is just overused because Assault Rifle really means a full auto weapon, which no one ever uses against American civilians in America. Assault weapon is semi auto rifles like the AR-15. Assault Rifle is the same with capability to be switched from semi to full auto.

Fred, I thought you believed in God. Is that part, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out?"

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

"Assault Weapon" is a legal term/definition. Most use incorrectly, as stated, to describe a semi automatic firearm.

'Assault Weapon' must be able to be fire on fully or selectable fully automatic. Continuous firing until you release the trigger.

Ignorant people that really shouldn't comment in firearm debates, use the term 'assault weapon / rifle' wrong. Come off as ignorant as the truly are.

"Assault Weapons" were actually banned via the 'Brady Bill', but that ban expired, and since they are so expensive, and hard to acquire and keep, the ban was not extended by Congress.

Probably only FFL licensed collectors, like I used to be, would only be the folks with more money than common sense, and actually buy one.

@gamb00ler

What about gun shows, Roi Et? Isn't that where most of the nutjobs buy their weapons for assault, silencers aso?

Edited June 4Jun 4 by unblocktheplanet
add

15 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Semi-automatic have been in mass production for well over 100 years.

The argument to own guns is that we have the right to own guns. Anyone that wants one, that has not had that right stripped from them, can have one. People that don't want them, don't have to have them.

It is worth noting that gun regulations only really apply to law-abiding citizens. And the regulations disproportionately hut low-income law-abiding citizens.

Regulations are a slippery slope.

When I was a kid in California, anyone could walk into a sporting goods store, hardware store, or department store and buy a rifle or shotgun, and all the ammo you wanted. Anyone 18 or older could buy a handgun.

I do not remember any shootings.

But it's the guns don't cha know.

It IS the guns, 'tail. Michael Moore's documentary, Bowling for Columbine, found that Canadians own far more guns than Yanks. (We also largely keep our doors unlocked. And yet, we hardly shoot each other, except for gang violence and those copying US-style.

18 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Data from 2021 is not current.
Since then, pandemic-era insecurity, civil unrest, and Trump's rhetoric promoting fears of future gun restrictions have driven a surge in firearm ownership.
According to recent data, households with guns are approaching 1980 levels—roughly 46% today versus about 54% in 1980.

But it's the guns, don't cha know.

Yes—there are now close to half a billion of them in circulation.

https://ammo.com/articles/how-many-guns-in-the-us

So, per your data, there are 15% fewer homes with guns today, than there was in 1980, correct?

I asked you to support your claim that: "Guns have been the leading cause of death among younger Americans (aged 1–19) since 2020, according to CDC data.", yet you never provided the data.

I also asked if the data specified what percentage of the gun deaths were suicides, and you have not responded to that.

I believe that you do not like guns, and would like them taken away from the people that do like guns, is that correct?

31 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Fred, I thought you believed in God. Is that part, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out?"

God has destroyed evil in history before. He doesn't expect us to be victims. Evil has to be put down as most won't negotiate.

38 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

What about gun shows, Roi Et? Isn't that where most of the nutjobs buy their weapons for assault, silencers aso?

This is from a source.............“The majority of firearms used in criminal activity are obtained illegally,” said David Chianese, a correspondent at Law Enforcement Today, published author and former NYPD detective. “Stricter or additional gun laws do not reduce gun violence.”

A 2019 survey conducted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) found that some 43 percent of criminals had bought their firearms on the black market, 6 percent acquired them via theft, and 10 percent made a retail purchase – 0.8 percent purchased a weapon from a gun show.

In 11 percent of cases, the criminal had someone else buy a gun for them – known as a straw purchase – while an additional 15 percent got guns from a friend or relative. Some 12 percent of weapons found on a crime scene had been brought there by someone else.

A recent national survey of prison inmates aged 18 to 40, published by Preventative Medicine, found that only one in 10 bought the firearm involved in the act that resulted in them being jailed..

The majority of guns used in school shooting were obtained by legal sales and given or straw purchased by someone knowing another who bought it legally, which needs to be stopped immediately. I sold guns with a license at a gun dealer for years, and was never fond of gun sales at shows for this reason, even though most purchases are legit and for non criminal use.

The problem here IS the legal purchaser going above what should happen, meaning keeping the guns for themselves and not passing them along. This is hard to stop, and this isn't a responsible gun owner.

12 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

God has destroyed evil in history before. He doesn't expect us to be victims. Evil has to be put down as most won't negotiate.

As a Quaker, I don't believe anyone who believes in violence and wars, including guns, can have religion. First Commandment, remember? No qualifications there.

2 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

As a Quaker, I don't believe anyone who believes in violence and wars, including guns, can have religion. First Commandment, remember? No qualifications there.

I don't like wars but you can't let evil get away with anything. There will always be evil as it starts in the homes, and until that's curtailed by better parenting, it spawns people who's agenda is to hurt and kill.

1 hour ago, gargamon said:

Wrong again, as usual.

Assault weapons are a category of semi-automatic firearms designed for quick firing and military applications. They are legally defined by state and local laws through specific features, such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds, and are distinct from fully automatic military assault rifles. [1, 2, 3]

Key Characteristics and Functionality

• Semi-Automatic Fire: Assault weapons fire one bullet per trigger pull, but reload automatically. [1]

• High-Capacity Magazines: Many are equipped with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, allowing for a high volume of fire without reloading. [1, 2]

• Military Aesthetic: These civilian-legal firearms are modeled after battlefield weapons, often sharing high muzzle velocities and rapid rates of fire. [1, 2]

oops, my bad ...

Should have specified "Assault Rifle", not weapon.

As pointed out earlier, any item, can be considered an 'assault' weapon, and a bit vague. Like 'assault with a deadly weapon' charge, could be anything.

And another correction, it wasn't the Brady Bill that banned 'Assault Rifles' and other 'assault weapons'. It was a follow up bill, signed the following year, which some parts or all parts of, expired 10 yrs later ...

Edited June 4Jun 4 by KhunLA

3 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

As a Quaker, I don't believe anyone who believes in violence and wars, including guns, can have religion. First Commandment, remember? No qualifications there.

This: 1. Do not worship any Gods before me.? (Ex. 20:3)

Or did you mean this: 6. Do not murder. (Ex. 20:13)

5 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I don't like wars but you can't let evil get away with anything. There will always be evil as it starts in the homes, and until that's curtailed by better parenting, it spawns people who's agenda is to hurt and kill.

Sorry, Fred, I believe nonviolence can fix ANY situation.

'tail, obviously, though shalt not kill. No exceptions noted. The tablets weren't that big.

5 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Sorry, Fred, I believe nonviolence can fix ANY situation.

'tail, obviously, though shalt not kill. No exceptions noted. The tablets weren't that big.

The Geneva convention has laws that some break because they don't care about lives. These have been proven to be the most evil and the only way to stop them was decimation. History has shown many negotiations have failed, and terrorists are created at home every day, and there isn't a way to stop parents from teaching hate, as it goes back generations.

57 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

God has destroyed evil in history before. He doesn't expect us to be victims. Evil has to be put down as most won't negotiate.

Sorry. There is no god.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

So, per your data, there are 15% fewer homes with guns today, than there was in 1980, correct?

Approximately, yes.

But you've simply restated a relatively minor distribution statistic—a 15% decline in the share of households with guns—while ignoring the fact that there are now close to half a billion firearms in circulation, an increase of more than 200% since 1980.

What conclusion was your original post supposed to establish? Because your statistic doesn't demonstrate fewer guns, less availability, or that guns are less of an issue.

3 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Sorry. There is no god.

If that's what you believe, for your reasons, okay,but you might be surprised one day.

44 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

If that's what you believe, for your reasons, okay,but you might be surprised one day.

Well you definitely won't be surprised. You'll be worm food. It's too bad you won't be able to look back and see how gullible you were.

3 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Well you definitely won't be surprised. You'll be worm food. It's too bad you won't be able to look back and see how gullible you were.

I've never been gullible. I just see things that make more sense than what some say. Even if I wasn't devout, I would never take a chance on forever.

8 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I did not say there were no shootings, I said that I don not remember any shootings as a kid, meaning in my limited frame of reference. Kids in the same situation now, cannot say the same.

But guns were in more homes, and were easier to get, and yet there were fewer shootings.

So, if guns aren't the issue, are we really expected to believe that the United States simply has six times as many violent, unstable or unhinged people than its peer high-income developed nations?

Because that's the logical implication.

Either firearm availability plays a significant role, or Americans are uniquely prone to violence on a scale not seen in Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, France, Japan and other developed countries.

And if you genuinely believe the latter, you've inadvertently made an even stronger argument for tighter gun controls in the United States.

3 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

It IS the guns, 'tail. Michael Moore's documentary, Bowling for Columbine, found that Canadians own far more guns than Yanks. (We also largely keep our doors unlocked. And yet, we hardly shoot each other, except for gang violence and those copying US-style.

Among high-income developed countries, Canada experiences roughly 2-3 firearm deaths per 100,000 people.

Australia is lower again at around 0.76 per 100,000 - approximately 3-4 times lower than Canada.

The UK sits at roughly 0.2 per 100,000 - around 4 times lower than Australia, more than 10 times lower than Canada, and approximately 60-70 times lower than the United States.

At some point, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that these differences are merely statistical noise or coincidence.

The United States is not a slight outlier. It is in a completely different league from its peer nations when it comes to firearm mortality.

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Approximately, yes.

But you've simply restated a relatively minor distribution statistic—a 15% decline in the share of households with guns—while ignoring the fact that there are now close to half a billion firearms in circulation, an increase of more than 200% since 1980.

What conclusion was your original post supposed to establish? Because your statistic doesn't demonstrate fewer guns, less availability, or that guns are less of an issue.

Do you think a household (or individual) with 50 guns is a significantly higher threat than a household (or individual) with 5 guns? A lot of people collect guns or like to have a variety of guns for different applications or whatnot.

And why did you clip my post?

Again, I asked you to support your claim that: "Guns have been the leading cause of death among younger Americans (aged 1–19) since 2020, according to CDC data.", yet you never provided the data.

I also asked if the data specified what percentage of the gun deaths were suicides, and you have not responded to that.

I believe that you do not like guns, and would like them taken away from the people that do like guns, is that correct?

Pretty weak brother

5 hours ago, KhunLA said:

"Assault Weapon" is a legal term/definition. Most use incorrectly, as stated, to describe a semi automatic firearm.

I remember when the term “assault weapon” started to pop up back in the 80’s referring to those “scary looking rifles” used in marketing gimmicks and remember thinking and jokingly saying “isn’t anything used as weapon an assault weapon?” Then the term started ramping up with the anti-gun crowd advocates and the term “assault weapon” became a legal insertion in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, that’s the moment I applied the word Stupid for highly generalized term usage for a specific “menacing looking rifle”. A stick can be a deadly “assault weapon” which has been a preferred tool by many for thousands of years. The term should be “menacing looking weapon” to get its full hysterical scary effect. Anyway, sticking to my guns on this one.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by novacova

24 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So, if guns aren't the issue, are we really expected to believe that the United States simply has six times as many violent, unstable or unhinged people than its peer high-income developed nations?

Why not compare to all nations with gun control? And yes, I do think we are generally more prone to violence then some countries.

24 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Because that's the logical implication.

Either firearm availability plays a significant role, or Americans are uniquely prone to violence on a scale not seen in Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, France, Japan and other developed countries.

Except that firearm availability has decreased. It is significantly more difficult to get gun today in the US than it was fifty years ago, particularly for low-income individuals.

28 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

And if you genuinely believe the latter, you've inadvertently made an even stronger argument for tighter gun controls in the United States.

Why?