Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47
Thanks Tree15Thanks

Thread: What Does Road to Change Group Want to Change ?

  1. #11
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    49,895
    Thanks
    15015

    Quote Originally Posted by rwb72 View Post
    Reasoning ? More a matter of definition. While the term "assault weapon' is without a strict-tight definition, and is still open to interpretation generally, the best definition of an assault rifle agreed to by intellects regarding guns is one capable of "selective fire". The term selective fire refers to the capability to choose between single shot, bursts (usually 3-5 shots in rapid succession), or fully automatic ("machine gun type) fire.

    As I said the AR-15 is only a semi-automatic, capable of firing only with each pull of the trigger. Confusing all this is the defining of guns that LOOK LIKE fully automatic weapons but are not, such as this definition which frankly contradicts itself >>

    Definition of assault rifle (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...ssault%20rifle)
    : any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

    The confusion abounds as definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.[1][2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

    https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/u...pagewanted=all
    The best definition I've seen for an assault weapon would be found in the New Jersey bill 2761

    .
    "Assault firearm" means:
    (1) The following firearms:
    Algimec AGM1 type
    Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12"
    Armalite AR-180 type
    Australian Automatic Arms SAR
    Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms
    Beretta AR-70 and BM59 semi-automatic firearms
    Bushmaster Assault Rifle
    Calico M-900 Assault carbine and M-900
    CETME G3
    Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88 type
    Colt AR-15 and CAR-15 series
    Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1 and Max 2, AR 100 types
    Demro TAC-1 carbine type
    Encom MP-9 and MP-45 carbine types
    FAMAS MAS223 types
    FN-FAL, FN-LAR, or FN-FNC type semi-automatic firearms
    Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12 shotguns
    G3SA type
    Galil type Heckler and Koch HK91, HK93, HK94, MP5, PSG-1
    Intratec TEC 9 and 22 semi-automatic firearms
    M1 carbine type
    M14S type
    MAC 10, MAC 11, MAC 11-9mm carbine type firearms
    PJK M-68 carbine type
    Plainfield Machine Company Carbine
    Ruger K-Mini-14/5F and Mini-14/5RF
    SIG AMT, SIG 550SP, SIG 551SP, SIG PE-57 types
    SKS with detachable magazine type
    Spectre Auto carbine type
    Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48 type
    Sterling MK-6, MK-7 and SAR types
    Steyr A.U.G. semi-automatic firearms
    USAS 12 semi-automatic type shotgun
    Uzi type semi-automatic firearms
    Valmet M62, M71S, M76, or M78 type semi-automatic firearms
    Weaver Arm Nighthawk.
    (2) Any firearm manufactured under any designation which is substantially identical to any of the firearms listed above.

  2. #12
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    53,606
    Thanks
    41282

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by rwb72 View Post
    I know exactly the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and I posted it in Post # 5 for your convenience. Also, the classification of the of the AR-15 and/or what constitutes the term "assault weapon" by the US govt is only one among many. Lastly even that classification is moot since the 1994 Act is no longer law.
    Apparently you don't know the difference. Just like you don't know the difference between an immigrant and illegal.
    Thanks from Babba

  3. #13
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    49,895
    Thanks
    15015

    Quote Originally Posted by rwb72 View Post
    I know exactly the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and I posted it in Post # 5 for your convenience. Also, the classification of the of the AR-15 and/or what constitutes the term "assault weapon" by the US govt is only one among many. Lastly even that classification is moot since the 1994 Act is no longer law.
    You obviously don't know what the fuck an assault weapon is because the one used almost exclusively to assault Guadacanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, leyte, Saipan, Wake Island, Marianna and palau islands, kwajalein and java was the 30 cal carbine and it is not fully automatic.

  4. #14
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    49,895
    Thanks
    15015

    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    If you were alive in 1994 to 2004 it did happen.
    That did not include all semi automatic weapons.
    Thanks from Libertine

  5. #15
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,319
    Thanks
    4088

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by rwb72 View Post
    Some survivors of the Parkland massacre are engaged in a tour around the country, informing, registering and mobilizing people to vote, in hopes they will push to for stronger gun safety legislation. The organization aims to pass a law banning assault weapons used in mass shootings, to stop the sale of high-capacity magazines, and restrict the amount of ammunition, according to CNN.

    It might be noted that the gun used in the Parkland massacre was an AR-15, not an assault weapon, but merely an ordinary semi-automatic rifle, that fires only with each pull of the trigger. Another massacre like Parkland could easily happen if the bans and restrictions cited in the CNN report were enacted. It could happen just with an ordinary semiautomatic pistol, with quick changes of low-capacity clips (ammunition).

    IMO, this group is to be admired for their activism and energy, but they could be more effective in preventing school shootings, or mass shootings anywhere, if they were also pushing for abolishing gun-free zones, and for establishing nationwide carry concealed weapon law.

    These might go further to stop mass shooters, who see buildings designated as gun free zones as open targets, and sitting ducks, for them and their treacherous actions. This tour would be a perfect opportunity to post up a red light to the killers, instead of the green light they now get from the gun-free zones.

    https://www.kvia.com/news/politics/m...sday/766196088
    More astroturfing is all this is. Plain and simple.

    "March For Our Lives" is one of many, many dark money political operations that are intended to influence people to vote for a particular political party's candidates (in this case, Democrats). It registered itself as a 501(c)(4) so that it would not have to disclose its donors, so that donors that want to capitalize on any political energy that comes up from time to time can dump funds into it and hopefully influence people to salute their cause and vote (Democrat) next election. That's really and truly all it is. There is always a lot of this kind of stuff going on. Dark, political money steering the ship in secrecy while working very hard to keep up pretenses that it's a pure, organic, grassroots cause created and led by the kids themselves. Yeah, bullshit.

    That's not to say I think it should be illegal, what they're doing. I just think we should always assume some bullshit is going on when it's apparent there are some power players working behind the scenes trying to make it appear that there's grassroots advocacy going on.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 12th July 2018 at 02:55 PM.
    Thanks from rwb72

  6. #16
    Member Robert Urbanek's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,448
    Thanks
    1477

    From
    Vacaville, CA
    Why are liberals bending over backwards to avoid the topic of banning handguns?

    Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the army psychiatrist accused of gunning down 13 people at Fort Hood on Thursday, managed to fire 100 rounds with a semiautomatic handgun between the start of his rampage at 1:20 p.m. and the time he was shot at 1:27 p.m. . .

    an experienced gunman can fire off a 20-round magazine—the likely capacity of Hasan's gun—in 3.3 seconds. Reloading takes under two. You just press the magazine release button with your shooting hand and insert the new magazine into the grip with your offhand
    .

    Source: Was it difficult for the Fort Hood shooter to fire 100 shots in seven minutes?

    You can kill plenty of people with a handgun. Why does the word "assault" make a difference?
    Thanks from orangecat

  7. #17
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68,561
    Thanks
    50430

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Urbanek View Post
    Why are liberals bending over backwards to avoid the topic of banning handguns?

    Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the army psychiatrist accused of gunning down 13 people at Fort Hood on Thursday, managed to fire 100 rounds with a semiautomatic handgun between the start of his rampage at 1:20 p.m. and the time he was shot at 1:27 p.m. . .

    an experienced gunman can fire off a 20-round magazine—the likely capacity of Hasan's gun—in 3.3 seconds. Reloading takes under two. You just press the magazine release button with your shooting hand and insert the new magazine into the grip with your offhand
    .

    Source: Was it difficult for the Fort Hood shooter to fire 100 shots in seven minutes?

    You can kill plenty of people with a handgun. Why does the word "assault" make a difference?
    Because the velocity of the bullets causes much more severe injuries.

    As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

    In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

    I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

    The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

    A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.

    Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-guns/553937/

  8. #18
    Member Robert Urbanek's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,448
    Thanks
    1477

    From
    Vacaville, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Because the velocity of the bullets causes much more severe injuries.



    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-guns/553937/
    Fair enough. Presumably, you could ban all weapons that discharge bullets at a high velocity. Do hunting rifles fire with a low velocity? But, in any case, why not ban handguns too since they are implicated in many more deaths?
    Thanks from orangecat

  9. #19
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68,561
    Thanks
    50430

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Urbanek View Post
    Fair enough. Presumably, you could ban all weapons that discharge bullets at a high velocity. Do hunting rifles fire with a low velocity? But, in any case, why not ban handguns too since they are implicated in many more deaths?
    Just stop. There are certain weapons, like assault rifles, that shouldn't be available to the general population and I'm sure there are handguns that shouldn't be, either.

    Why can't we regulate weapons that are particularly lethal or cause more deaths?

    What is your point?

  10. #20
    Member Robert Urbanek's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,448
    Thanks
    1477

    From
    Vacaville, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Just stop. There are certain weapons, like assault rifles, that shouldn't be available to the general population and I'm sure there are handguns that shouldn't be, either.

    Why can't we regulate weapons that are particularly lethal or cause more deaths?

    What is your point?
    But handguns do cause more deaths. Why shouldn't they be banned?

    most murders caused by guns involve handguns, according to FBI data.

    Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Climate Change Scrubbed from Gov’t Report on Health and Climate Change
    By Dittohead not! in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 5th July 2018, 11:00 AM
  2. "New Silk Road Could Change Global Economics Forever"
    By Meursault in forum Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10th June 2015, 12:15 AM
  3. Change. What change? Senate votes to extend Patriot Act
    By Horhey in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26th February 2010, 03:31 PM
  4. Iranians hope change in U.S. means change for them
    By Inkslinger in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 13th May 2009, 05:57 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed