dustryder

It is commonly known to be atypical for rifles prove "more lethal" than handguns in the United States on whole, but I do not have access to the state by state or other demographic data to delve deeper.  Perhaps the majority of firearm related casualties differ from a piece of gelatin sentenced to the firing squad

but you aren't banning all rifles right?  just semi autos with detachable magazines, yes?

you aren't banning the round or placing a restriction of foot pounds etc so the only attributes left are semi auto with detachable magazines, correct?

You've already see the pump ar-15 look a like, do you think someone would make that pump action much easier and short so it could fire faster?  I sure think so.

if you look at the ballistics, again .380, 9mm etc handgun rounds also come in rifle form and depending on the round still don't compare to a .223 handgun, 357 magnum, 30-30 etc all more than sufficient to do what they are designed when you look at their wound cavities.

From what I have actually seen the bullet type is the major factor i.e. hollow point

is a pretty good reference since the links and discussion at one time or another has been about power or force, is there some foot pounds of force limit all guns would have to have or be under for the ban?

why would you ban a .22 semi auto rifle but not all the handgun calibers 380 and higher, which are much more powerful?

an ar pistol isn't banned but a 9mm rifle that looks like an ar would be.  you may want to rethink this.

Troy Pump Action AR-15

as ballistics show the non hollow point rifle round tends to pass through and not expand or cause a wound cavity as a hollow point, therefore handgun hollow point would have the potential to cause a significantly larger temporary wound cavity than the .223 (which is very small in comparison) that would pass straight through.  hollow point bullets of 9mm and above cause wound cavities all of which are deadly.  The variables to bullet expansion include but are limited to shot location, bullet type and even manufacturer.

all semi auto rifles with detachable magazines (does this include the smaller calibers like .22 and handgun calibers that happen to be in rifle form?

if a rifle does not have a detachable magazine but still fires the .223 round either in pump, lever or bolt action would those be approved

If a semi auto handgun with a detachable magazine is designed to fire the .223 round  but has a 9 inch barrel would those be approved?

you aren't understanding the realities of the ballistic tests for yourself and just having faith in what you read because you agree with it.

The ballistic cavity formed from rifles is pretty shocking, but if you consider that handgun rounds, while maybe not as shocking is still more than efficient to achieve the desired effects.  In other words what they are describing is "overkill" which is why they are used on large animals while smaller ones are not.  This is why I say dead is dead.  Just because the trauma may look worse the end result makes that irrelevant.  On the rare chance that the rifle bullet is the deciding factor that is a rarity which you aren't interested in by your words about other anomalies or rarities.

Whatever difference you seem to think there is, is minor at best.  

non hollow points tend to go straight through people, including rifle rounds.  Hollow points on the other hand is what makes the large wound cavities including handgun rounds which is evident by the ballistic tests.

this is why I find little difference between the effectiveness of rifles and handgun in actual outcomes.  

it is a direct result of bullet type and number used, everything else is minor.

so if you want to ban semi auto rifles, you should also want to ban semi auto hand guns for the very same reasons.

does that expand what you want to ban now?  doesn't seem very logical if it doesn't based on what you have previously said, wound cavities and all.

the fact that people have been killed with almost every caliber doesn't prove they are lethal?  again more legal isn't a real thing, can't be proved in the real world, a shot in the heart, dead, shot to the head dead, sure some "survive" so to speak but those are very rare and usually have permanent damage.

so this difference you claim just isn't a real thing, maybe in video games or on paper but not in these real situations.

sorry but those links...well, are yet again subjective and biased for not including important details

that's probably because he was using a target round and not a hollow point, they were lucky in is ignorance. 

so like I said, not the gun but the bullet, thanks for that LOL

if you are going to hunt large animals you need more muzzle energy which is mostly a function of the bullet.

while you need that to kill a bear or elephant that's not required for something smaller like a person which is why the whole lethality is bs. in real world situations.

so you are technically correct which doesn't matter because we aren't talking about large animals and what is on paper.

The FBI and police departments generally carry 9mm hand guns, don't you wonder why?  Do you believe they just shoot to wound like on tv?  This choice was done from ballistic studies the FBI has conducted to reach this conclusion.  So either they don't know what they are talking about or it's a very effective round.  sure you could go bigger but why?  You can hunt a rodents with an ak-47 but generally you don't because you don't need to.

so selective banning of semi auto rifles and not semi auto handguns just isn't logical.

so that's a no you can't prove that any specific gun type is more lethal when a person is shot in a vital place, ok, that's what I thought.

you want to ban semi auto rifles, pistols by their very nature have pistol grips so it's not an "extension"  since you want to ban all semi auto rifles those cosmetics are irrelevant to any significant advantage to those guns with out them, you've said so yourself.

what extensions did the hand gun mass murders have used these ban worthy extensions, same question you didn't answer the first time.

which is why I asked for clarification on what you consider "extensions" since cosmetics made no difference.

if these aren't extensions aren't cosmetics then you need to explain what you are talking about

I'm trying to understand why you think semi auto rifles and semi auto handguns are so demonstrably different one should be banned and the other should not.  

lethality can't be quantifiably measured that I know of, and you haven't shown that it can be.

Please explain why one is less lethal than the other (rifle vs handgun) because for the reasons I've given there is very little difference other than very specific instances.

Show me statistical real evidence that if person x had been shot with a handgun they would have survived.

you equated accuracy to more deadly, therefore you'd need or want to make the gun less accurate or remove accurate guns, which seems pretty unsafe for me for those lawful citizens who would be using them don't you think?

in the laboratory that's true, what I'm asking is any proof at all that it somehow translates to real event, real situation and real world statistical differences.

really because more than the average of mass murders are by handguns, I find that a bit ironic.

since it's subjective and individualistic there's no way to measure or quantify it.  There are no trade offs in the improvements and ways they try to compensate mussel flip, which the vast majority of owners don't need or worry about, it's more of a cosmetic  or novelty which is why they aren't standard or has a large market.

and yet the hand gun or other mass murders didn't have any of these "extensions" whatever that means, because you've agreed cosmetics aren't relevant in this topic.  So far all semi auto rifles is in the ban, but I'm not aware of what you mean by "extensions"  Do you mean anything that allows someone to use it accurately?

Because that would seem, well, rather stupid.  If you are going to allow people to own guns having them be accurate is a safety feature as well as managing recoil or mussel flip.  If someone is hunting, target shooting, self defense situations, you want that person to be able to use that tool, aka gun in the best and safest way.  So you'd ban things that could allow that type of control over the gun?  Doesn't make any sense to me, I'll need you to explain it.

give me a list of "extensions" that increase lethal potential but doesn't affect safety to the lawful user.

The Fisa warrant investigation needs to happen.

Small scale? This is 1000 times bigger than Watergate. The FBI the DOJ and the CIA conspired to overthrow a dully elected president.

do you have proof or is that just opinion?

Well one example is that rifles are heavier than handguns. Which means there is less recoil. Less recoil means less time to re-position the gun to fire the next shot. Another example is that rifles have longer barrels, which increases accuracy and bullet velocity. Obviously the more accurate the shot, the more likely you hit your intended target and the more energy the bullet has, the more damage to the target. There are other more obvious things such as handguns being smaller and more easier to conceal. Which means there is less time to react in comparison to if an assault rifle were in plain view at all times.

all opinion and situational

pretty trivial based on the reality and ballistic testing, dead it dead whatever damage you think can be equated is irrelevant to that fact. 

Being wounded has so many variables the #1 being location of the wound, there is no way to make any kind of statistical inference based on that because you can't predict who will be wounded and where.

modern designs have been and continue to address and kind of recoil/mussel flip, you are making way too much of it, again a trivial factor at best.  If those are the the strong arguments for bans, they are pretty weak.

but isn't that what you've done by focusing on mass murders via rifle?  or not focusing on all gun murders?

I'm not following your logic for banning all semi auto rifles but not all semi auto handguns other than you think the key and notable differences is recoil and accuracy.  Are those the only defining factors?

Hand guns can be fitted with red dot, holographic sights, laser sights etc.  the post of the pistol brace (roni) would mitigate recoil for the feeble that couldn't handle it, which is why they are an uncommon oddity.  Probably plenty of diy things should anyone be so inclined,  What about ported barrels, the expulsion of the gases go up applying a downward force to compensate for the muzzle flip.  but again a trivial thing.

Sure. Think of most tame semi-automatic handgun you can think of. Then think of all the ways in which you could extend this gun to make it more lethal. Imagine those extensions are banned. The resulting gun, despite being a semi-automatic gun will not be banned.

are you finally understanding why this is or would be a weapons ban vs what started out as an "assault weapons" ban?

so this means Trump has been vindicated

Michael Flynn and Roger Stone are two perfect examples of this countries Banana Republic judicial system.  Michael Flynn was interrogated fort hours on end and eventually ended up contradicting himself under the pressure and threats of imprisonment. He plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. Roger Stone was also interrogated for days but refused to accept some BS plea deal again for a crime he did not commit.

If this is something you want to assert, I would certainly say to provide your evidence. However personally I think this encroaches on small-scale conspiracy theory territory

Is recreational activity, such as "plinking" and general target shooting, a legitimate use?

Is decoration and art a legitimate use?

Is teaching a minor firearm ethics and safety a legitimate use?

Is historical and educational application a legitimate use?

Is pest control a legitimate use?

Is hunting a legitimate use?

Is Self Defense a legitimate use?

Is Common Defense a legitimate use?

Is training and sport a legitimate use?

What does a realistic use case entail?  

you seem to ignore the mass murder done with a .22 caliber handgun, the smallest caliber, so that really isn't true in reality.  It's just a scare tactic.

right so it's a semi auto rifle ban now an expanded version of the 1994 Clinton ban.

but again there is little practical difference between a semi auto rifle with a detachable magazine and a semi auto handgun with a detachable magazine.  But I believe you'd also ban or limit how many rounds a magazine could hold, you just never said what that number was, though I recall you thinking around 10.

I've addressed that and mass murders that have happened does seem to prove that true.  there is practically no recoil on a .22 then there's a variety of calibers in-between the 22 and a 380 which again has minimal recoil it's also call a 9mm short, then the 9mm which is the standard for which all other handgun rounds are compared.  Very easily managed which is why it's so popular, common and prevalent.  Because again if you could time travel remove the rifles you can't predict in the majority of those shootings they wouldn't have just used a handgun.

except for Las Vegas these happened at close range so whatever perceived accuracy difference you think there is, isn't relevant in those cases.

you should really look up ballistic tests on youtube so you can know what you are talking about, check them out for 10mm, 45, 357 magnum, 44 magnum there's others but that should be enough, those are all handgun rounds, then check out the .223  I don't think you'd have any preference with which one you'd rather be shot with or question the legality of any of them.  then look up the 9mm and you'll come to the same conclusion.

And once you do that you'll finally get to the point of banning all semi auto, which as I said way back is where you are headed but appear to not realize it yet.

you want to see some serious damage look up a 12 gauge shot gun slug.

The law doesn't vindicate people , it only decides if there is sufficient evidence to indict. You are either charged with a crime and given a trial or you are not. That is all the law does. He does not have to be vindicated of anything, He has not been charged with a crime. Anyone's personal feelings that a person who has not been charged with a crime has to be vindicated is delusional.  A trial vindicates accusation off guilt. No trial and no charges require no vindication.

so this means Trump has been vindicated

No, actually the law is supposed to demonstrate a crime has been committed to start an investigation. You don't just investigate to look for crime. That would make every person on earth a suspect of a crime. That's what banana republics, socialist and communist countries do. Accuse people of crimes and then look for anything they can find to make it stick no matter how ridiculous.

That's how Muller got all of his indictments all be it not one had anything to do with the purpose of the investigation.

the variance from year to year and time spans doesn't make for any real comparison along with the rarity of it happening

all the mitigating things I have already mentions that affect those numbers.

not at all, because now you acknowledge that a main factor are the bullets (x many) which shows the firearm is less important.

it's impossible to say the numbers in the study show what they claim for the reasons I've already given, the things that can't be accounted for, lack of dimensional and time travel.

I would call that a political answer lol, but I'll try to be more clear  So how do assault weapons kill at a "faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons?" like other semi auto weapons which were not and are not classified as assault weapons because they lack the cosmetic features.  Or is it your position that all semi auto rifles should be considered assault weapons?

I've asked you and we talked about this being a semi auto ban rather than an assault weapon ban, you said it was just an assault weapon ban if I remember correctly.  so then we have to specifically define what an assault weapon is to you, what sets it apart from other semi auto guns.  

Now if you want to say yes you would ban all semi auto rifles then that would be that.  But as of yet you have not said that and indicated all semi auto rifles would not be affected by the ban.  If it's not a total semi auto ban I want to see where the lines are drawn.  I don't really expect straight answer and I recognized the political speak when I see it, giving a non committal or vague answers.  You selectively ignore the questions I pose to you that require a specific and or detailed answer, even ones that just require a yes or no.

I gave you a picture of an ar-15 and the ruger mini-14 ranch hand, one has been banned by the assault weapons ban, the other was not.  Would your version ban the ruger mini-14 ranch hand, why or why not.

Briefly if you would like, could you please list what constitutes "legitimate use" of firearms?

As for what I personally think is legitimate, a use case such that the use case is unique to the tool and is demonstrably a realistic use case.

Are you saying that mass shootings are more common than acts against individuals within the United States of America?  

Would you please define what you consider to be a mass shooting?

I tallied up the deaths, years, incidents for the assault weapons, nothing more to add, that's what your study was about.

the number of wounded and killed is a direct result of how many bullets were fired, not the gun firing them.

the numbers are right there in black and white, not much else to say.

ok such as?  I've suggested perhaps accused you of a semi-auto ban and not simply an assault weapons ban, but you don't know, won't find out or in any way articulate what makes an assault weapon more deadly, lethal whatever than it's featureless counterpart.  So you want to ban something that you really can't define, don't really know what it is or why it's different than things that function in the exact same manner.

show me some evidence that a pistol grip, barrel shroud etc makes a gun more deadly, lethal etc

even with the stats I gave they had other guns besides the assault weapon and most of these cases it's not clear or specific how many people were killed with which gun because in at least of some these, more than one weapon was used.  So the numbers I gave were skewed in your favor.

sounds like outlier events, since they are <0.5% of gun murders

so why ban ak-47s?  they might have been used twice?  ever?  Is a featureless Ak-47 still an assault weapon or just a semi auto one?

all semi auto function is the same, so this never made any sense, care to elaborate?

the norm for "mass shootings" are handguns.

sounds like faith to me.

yes, show me proof that I'm wrong.  Guns don't actually kill unless you club someone with it, but it really is the bullet isn't it.  So how do assault weapons kill at a "faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons?"

let's take some steps back and have you define what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon, what features or functions that are unique to them.

then explain how these features unique to them or deserving of assault weapon classification makes them more deadly, lethal etc than those guns with out those features and or cosmetics.

I'm looking for some real specifics here so I know exactly what you are referring to because it seems easily to add in all semi autos.

you are the one changing to topic to fit your agenda which is banning assault weapons, since hand guns are used far more often in mass murders.  You selectively choose your stats to fit that narrative, by trying to focus on the number of people killed per incident.

there isn't enough data to make any real statistical inference, even you admitted how the data is lacking.  Your faith in the study doesn't allow you to see the obvious and their bias.

the average has been consistent

I'm not aware that any of these murderers stopped after killing x number of people, but instead were stopped, often killed, so the numbers are a direct result of them being stopped within a given time period.  This is why no real conclusions can be made by what weapon was used.  If not stopped and given enough time these numbers could be dwarfed by a person with a knife or hammer.

so to say that study took into account these variables is patently false because it's not possible.

some years there were no mass murders that met the study or your criteria so to try and glean some kind of statistical data from such rare events is a joke.

to try and draw a statistical conclusion based on 'what if' is fortune telling at best or perfect scenario which isn't realistic.

the who,what,where and why to mass shootings no one really knows just like the factors that mitigate or fail to mitigate the outcomes, which no study can account for.  To try and claim the assault weapon ban did anything with certainty is plain wrong, it's inconclusive at best.

the only way to reduce the number of people killed at one time is to stop the murderer as soon as possible, pretty simple, pretty basic.  

And since all semi autos function the same way, have the same rate of fire an arbitrary assault weapon ban is meaningless.  Unless you'd like to try and show how the cosmetics that categorize them as assault weapons make such a big difference compared to their non cosmetic or featureless counter parts.

yes that's right, but you turned it into an assault weapons ban and only mass murders committed by them

that is beyond absurd, these mass shootings are already anomalies, so how could anyone possibly predict how many people would have been killed if they didn't have an assault weapon, I mean are you serious?  they can time travel, travel different dimensions and say how many people would or would not be killed based on the weapon the shooter had?  wow talk about faith.

how do you predict were and when a mass shooting will occur and how many would be killed exactly?  Because that's some next level insight I want to know about.

so many flaws, the number killed is a direct result of how long it took to stop the shooter, how many mass murders were stopped prematurely by law enforcement intervention or someone else with a gun?  no way to know.  Far too many variables and bias in that study to make much of anything about their "findings"

again tell me how they know how many less would have died with or without a ban, it's not possible.

when you have people grouped up in an enclosed place it doesn't matter what kind of semi auto you have, like the Orlando bar, when people are trapped it should be obvious that it doesn't matter, assault rifle or not, makes no difference, just like it didn't matter at Virginia Tech or the others in the top 10

now tell me how anyone could possibly know that if murderer x didn't have access to an assault rifle the end result still wouldn't have been similar, that might have changed their location or plan, but no one can say the results wouldn't still have been similar.

All this prognosticating in the study can't possibly account for the numerous variables, many of which are critical.  This biased study is a guess and you have to take it on faith.

how do you come up with an average death rate when all of these were unique and a lot of circumstances affected that rate, if the shooter is killed or stopped sooner than later, well can't make too much of those numbers can you.

How are the number killed a fault of the gun and not of law enforcement to stop them sooner?  that's how this game is played right?  If an armed guard encountered any of the murderers then the numbers probably wouldn't have been what they were which includes the ones committed by handguns.  This study is just fortune telling.

Barr says he is vindicated. With nothing to go on, Southern District of New York is going to spin wheels and only make Trump look good.

you cherry picked mass murders otherwise you couldn't make an argument for bans or more gun control.

post #68 , #80 using a liberal biased source as well as 114 page study which was far more specific in analyzing the data then the 9 page one you tried to present.

The study you cling to is b.s. for all the reasons and sources I've already given.

your "expert" study has been picked apart rather easily

other studies either show no causation or at best are inconclusive

I'm not expert by any means, even I pointed out the many flaws with your study.

Thinking something has 'potential' is taking it on faith that will MIGHT work.  Like Obama care you have to pass it to know what's in it, or you have to try it to see if it will work.

While that is true logically, that is why I think you are describing a ban, or a path to a ban of more than just "assault" weapons, which states have defined in their own way and differ between states.

the norm is handguns not "assault weapons"  the percentages and stats show that.

yes you have faith, that has been clear.

first step, yep to banning other guns.

without those you can't confiscate guns which is why a registration is unconstitutional.

aka take it on faith.

lethality,

potential for killing more

assault weapon

how mere cosmetics make it more "lethal" or dangerous etc.  

Again, you've brought up points that I've already addressed. I could copy and paste answers and their resultant dialogues but ultimately, they lead to you dropping the point entirely and then bringing up the same point in the next page over as if you hadn't dropped the point. This doesn't even address the fact that there are pages of unaddressed points entirely. Should I create a page of those most important points that were again asked and were again unaddressed? 

your whole point is murders of over x number of people is > total murders per year, then you have to ask why when they are < 0.5% of the total,

 but an arbitrary one

 you've tried to make an argument based on emotion

the study you claim shows the Clinton ban had an impact didn't show what you thought it would, plenty of contra studies or at the very least inconclusive.  

you toss in terms like "lethality" and others you can't define or give context for, no specifics, 

then you admit the flaws of the Clinton ban

but weren't those done by "experts"?

The ban was also an emotional reaction and not based on any study or facts, 

 it was inconclusive thus it expired and wasn't renewed.

it seems this has reached it's end, your proposal could only work in theory but not reality, there's no way to remove 10million+ "assault" weapons from the general public without military and law enforcement intervention, threat of force, violence etc, going house to house, basically creating a military state, if you wished to see any effect if your life time, otherwise it's pretty pointless.

And yet, obviously the first ban had little to nothing to do with experts, hence the cosmetics ban but we are to have faith this time will be different, just have faith. 

You haven't come up with a ban but some theory that you have faith in experts to come up with.

Yet experts haven't and aren't even trying to come up with a ban like you try to describe  The politicians on the other hand are the only ones who talk about bans.  Now  of course the exprts you talk about would be only the ones you agree with. 

When factoring in Republicans, this is true.  What is more liberal, Europe, or liberal America?  I think it's about the same.

Both the left and the right want to reduce abortions, and this will reduce abortion clinics.  The right ultimately wants to ban abortion or to allow it in rare situations.  They also want to overturn Roe V Wade to return the abortion decision back to the states.  The left wants abortion legal until 20 weeks unrestricted nationwide. Europe wants to reduce them too, but they have it legal until 12 weeks at the median.

I'm fine with Norway joining Canzuk.  The question is, are Noreigeins okay with it?  Since they speak Noreigean as well as English, they might not be willing to join Canzuk on that basis of that culture difference.

So you have no idea what or how this ban would be, but as I said before you want me to take it on faith of the experts, whom ever they are. Are the experts the ones who banned the cosmetics or are ignorant of guns and how they function?  You can't define what would and wouldn't be banned  but as I said you want people to take it on faith that these experts can. Who would be a better expert than those who know guns?  There's a lot of experts in the NRA. 

There are some areas where liberal America is more right wing then the rest of the world like with healthcare.  However, in many liberal states, AK 47 and similar guns are banned, many liberals want to place restrictions on free speech, although I don't think any western country has had censoring laws.

There are some areas where the west is more right wing then the American liberals.  On abortion for example, America to the best of my knowledge is the only western country to legalize it up until 20 weeks.  Most other western countries, it is legal, but only to about 12 weeks and there are restrictions for it (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/in-liberal-europe-abortion-laws-come-with-their-own-restrictions/278350/).  I also don't think they would approve of AOC's Green New deal, which provides unemployment benefits to those unwilling to work.  This is basically UBI, which only a few countries to my knowledge have tried, and these countries have gone back on it.

I think it is for Anglophone nations only, and you can't be in the EU to qualify.  The only country that might join from the group is Norway.  I hope they join, but this would require enough support among Noreigeins.  I imagine that this can be obtained.

I'm afraid your proposed ban still isn't clear

except that those parts identified what could be banned, otherwise it would have included all semi auto rifles if not all semi auto weapons

so again explain how this isn't a semi auto ban if you aren't banning cosmetics

please define "assault rifle"  "assault weapon" and their differences to each other and to non "assault rifles and weapons"

America is more right wing: About half of this country is left wing.

so no semi-automatic bans ever, except for assault weapons then, is that what you are saying?

it's insignificant in regards to all murders.

I believe you agreed and or understand cosmetics like a barrel shroud, pistol grip, thumb hole stock etc does not make the gun any more or less lethal, if you think otherwise please explain.

this is a "ruger mini 14 ranch hand rifle" https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.vc8JYnIumh2fOF6Uh6V6DAEsB1&pid=15.1&P=0&w=465&h=183

if the link doesn't work you can search up those words

You already know what an ar-15 looks like

One would(was in 94) be banned the other would(wasn't in 94) not, now imo you're pretty smart even though we may disagree, so I'm sure you can see where this is going in that they both fire the exact same round .223 and both have the ability to use whatever size magazine someone can buy,make,modify etc.

If we agree that cosmetics make little to no difference and I hope we do, then the ban was never logical to begin with and was based on an emotional fear because of how something looks.

There's plenty of videos of law makers talking about guns who haven't the slightest clue about guns and reality.  

https://youtu.be/iJmFEv6BHM0

these are fools you are asking us to trust and the people who believe him and people like him, but I digress

let's try to settle the cosmetic features since that seems to be the linchpin of classification.

so now you'd have to expand that ban to include semi auto hand guns and the ban I talked about way back.

Once you can rationalize banning something that's statically insignificant it would be easy to go after the significant ones.

To go after the lion's share of mass murders would require banning semi auto hand guns.

the 70 mass murders didn't have any "extensions" that made them more lethal, so then what?

I don't understand the logic of why stop at 24 when there's 70 more, don't their lives matter and their grieving families?

once that objection is gone there's always another right?