It is commonly known to be atypical for rifles to prove "more lethal" than handguns in the United States on whole,
Dusty: but now that we've established that rifles are typically more lethal than handguns we can move on.It is commonly known to be atypical for rifles to prove "more lethal" than handguns in the United States on whole,
Dusty: In which case bringing up handgun homicide rate doesn't make sense
The handgun homicide rate? Also, shouldn't you be bringing up some information?
the ballistic videos I've posted and researched on my own rather than relying on studies, apparently you don't watch the videos and things I post since your level of education about guns hasn't seem to increased much
but regardless, a judge has ruled that California's large capacity magazine ban is unconstitutional, therefore so would banning semi auto rifles.
I am satisfied enough that your proposal and how it would work would just lead to a weapons ban, also you haven't demonstrated how it wouldn't or couldn't
If the youtube videos are rooted in objective fact you should have no trouble finding scientific studies and/or evidence attesting to what the videos claim.However by telling me your information is entirely derived from videos means that the information you have is unverified and unobjective.
Apart from this, equating the ruling of a ban on large capacity magazines to a ruling on a ban of semi auto rifles is horribly flawed logic.
It is not up to me to demonstrate that it wouldn't. It is for you to demonstrate that it would. You're the one who's claiming that it's a slippery slope situation. And you have utterly failed to demonstrate this.
if you bothered to educate yourself you would have seen many of the videos made no claims some aren't even narrated but left up to you to believe your own eyes, which in these instances I do. I don't need to have faith in studies when I can observe the reality and draw my own conclusions from it. Being a free thinker is important. None of these contradict the FBI studies, unless you want to argue the FBI is wrong.a real world visual representation which goes with the ballistics chart Snoopy posted is pretty basic to understand what is actually happening and the ability of these calibers.
sure because you say so
hardly, you've gone from assault weapons to all semi auto rifles and have mentioned to include some hand guns but you didn't or wouldn't elaborate. Also your ban would include verbiage so it would be modified, updated whatever to include new designs that were similar, some kind of arbitrary sliding scale.when asked if specific guns or features would be banned they largely went ignored and unanswered, at best some vague non answer one could expect from a politician.
You tried to use a temporary wound cavity as a justification, but yet you can't or won't say how large a temporary wound cavity is acceptable to keep a gun off the ban list etc, I could go on, but it's not necessary.
because a ban on one thing does not entail a ban on another.
The exact same logic can be used to say fully automatic weapons have been constitutionally banned, therefore semi-automatic weapons can be constitutionally banned.
A ban has been implemented previously, with no further subsequent bans or expansions
Fundamentally, some level of gun ownership is protected by the second amendment
These facts indicate that a ban on assault weapons is unlikely to lead to further bans.
I didn't use it as a justification to keep/place a gun on the ban list. I used it as a justification, among others as to why the difference between rifles and handguns is not limited to just their mechanism, which you previously claimed.
as I have said I find enough flaws with your "evidence" that I don't find it useful, then when compared to other facts like ballistics etc, the lines you are attempting to draw aren't possible, but instead it would be a circle, not a line.
sure but you can't draw any lines so.....
you should read up on how and why that came to be and how and why that can't happen to semi autos, not constitutionally anyway.
yes it was specific, you are calling for a semi auto rifle ban huge difference as well as expansions or additional inclusions.
but what that means no one has answered yet
yes, I just have to have faith, I know.
again there has been no apples to apples proof. If put a 5 inch pipe through your monitor or a 3 inch one, in the end it doesn't make any difference does it. so at what point does the expansion not make any appreciable difference? no one seems to know because when you look at the videos, fbi tests etc most seem to be pretty dramatic. reminds me of Miracle Max The Princess Bride, they are just mostly dead not all dead.
except for Las Vegas as I have said, range hasn't been a deciding or major factor in the mass murders so barrel length isn't very important and perhaps a hindrance depending on the scenario. Whatever increased velocity a longer barrel gives is on par or perhaps causes a larger wound cavity than handguns of certain calibers and bullet designs, but again dead it dead.
Managing muzzle flip with hand guns can be done quickly even by complete novices. So this recoil theory you have doesn't have the impact you think, consider the videos I posted also showed women who managed just fine.
everything seems to hinge on this claim that .223 puts big holes in things, yep so doesn't a lot of other guns, handgun included. But you'd ban them for that reason even though we aren't banning guns based on their abilities that also put big holes in things.
Rate of fire for all semi auto actuated fire arms is the same, as fast as you can pull the trigger regardless of form factor.
Barrel length aka rifle form factor, isn't really a factor, or hasn't been so yet. (anomalies)
because of these I don't believe it would/should/could end with just a simple semi auto rifle ban, that just doesn't make sense to me. And I'm having difficulty understanding why it makes sense to you other than you see it as a path of least resistance to which I would say slippery slope since the handguns could easily be shown to meet the criteria for banning.If you expand to ban all semi auto which make up 90% of all firearms (don't quote me on that, was something I heard) then for all practical purposes it's a gun ban, which I have stated and reasoned prior.
one final thought on barrel length do you think the ballistics are significantly different between a 16" barrel (shortest legal) and a 15" barrel handgun?
So a constitutional ruling on ammunition does not entail the same constitutional ruling on firearms
Which doesn't change that they are both fundamentally banning a subsection of guns. One of which did not lead to more bans.
Bullets don't automatically cause death. That's why there are a number of injury statistics next to fatalities in datasets.
Practical rate of fire for all semi-auto actuated fire arms is not the same however.
one final thought on barrel length do you think the ballistics are significantly different between a 16" barrel (shortest legal) and a 15" barrel handgun?
No
I don't know what that means, there was talk of banning ammo but that quickly went away as they new it wouldn't be constitutional.
the assault weapons ban was specific and restrictive nothing like what you are advocating for.
you see it's very situational, when you look at the other murders most are around the 10% mark. If the Ar was so deadly how did so many escape wounded instead of dead in Las Vegas AND he might have used a bump stock?
circumstances and situations that really can't be accounted for in the stats or your studies. For all the talk about power, lethality etc, the numbers don't seem to really show that.
there's also how many shots were taken, the length of time the shooter had which I mentioned before those are huge key factors when looking that these numbers, which the studies can't factor in. Even you would have to agree the longer it takes the shooter to be stopped the more people they can shoot.
explain
good I don't think there's any significant difference either, with that said, one would be banned, the other would not, unless you'd like to now expand the ban into some hand guns or specific rounds?
Still talking about the large capacity magazine ban that was ruled unconstitutional. I'm not sure if you're talking about the same ban
The differences between it and what I advocate for do not justify a slippery slope scenario
The point you're missing the comparison to hand guns.
The numbers you've chosen don't show it because you've cherry picked a subset of the data. You can make data say anything you please if you cherry pick it.
Which are all variables which are reflected in the number of injuries and deaths which are then averaged out.
If recoil differs between guns, the effective firerate is different between guns.
I mean, you could extend this right? There's little difference between 16" and 15". Then you could say there's little difference between 15" and 14" and so on.
obviously our opinions differ
such as? that more people are killed by handguns? You are more likely to die in handgun murders? No idea what you are talking about.
I used the biased and liberal mother jones report which I posted for you, the numbers are what they are, no cherry picking needed.
Oh? not in the study you think is the best argument for your point." how many shots were taken, the length of time the shooter had"the confinement of the people per yard or whatever measure you like, obviously a bunch of people trapped in a room or unable to exit an area due to everyone fleeing etc is a huge factor.
ah ok, but what practical difference if any is made? in some of the cases where people are trapped in rooms or buildings how important is accuracy? And since you brought it up, how did rate of fire play a role in any of these murders?Do you think if in Las Vegas he would have aimed rather than use a bump stock he would have killed more people? I do.
yes, so where do you draw the line?
AR-15 deadliness, it should be made in comparison to handguns.
You used a subset of the mother jones report.
Which is factored in the amount of deaths/injuries.
Well the practical difference is a lower rate of effective fire. Whether this actually makes a difference is certainly something that can be tested. However, logically the principal is sound. Do you agree?
I didn't draw a line on gun barrel length.
which again you haven't provided, the video you presented had huge flaws and obvious things not taken into consideration which I pointed out. yet you still deny the realities of ballistic testing.
fine use the whole thing and tell me what the numbers say or you can as I suggested just look at the numbers no math required.
show me
if you can explain at what lower or higher rate of fire is/was a factor for any of these murders then perhaps I could agree. But since it depends on the individual the whole thing is silly. So it can't actually be tested. Recoil has no impact on people who are proficient, skilled, whatever thus subjective and individualistic.How proficient do you have to be where recoil plays little to no part in your accuracy? seem what I meanbut let's say it could, how does that translate to how many wouldn't have been killed?I.D.P.A. videos prove that well enough.
why not? don't you think you should? how else would you or anyone know what else to ban or not ban?
That is, if an inexperienced shooters shoots a gun with a large amount of recoil, there is likely to be a difference in practical firing speed than there is with an experienced shooter who shoots a gun with an insignificant amount of recoil.
Because bans typically shouldn't be decided on one factor, but on a multitude of factors. For example, basing a ban just on barrel length will include a huge swath of guns which are not considered assault weapons.
