I offered no reasoning other to to state that you cannot justify your position that there are “normal” guns other than by using your emotions.
I don’t “believe” that the gun used at Ft Hood wasn’t special. Facts are facts.
The AWB was never ruled on by the supreme court.
By the way, the 1994 AWB didn’t actually ban guns, it banned feature combinations.
Much like banning leather seats and chrome rims on the same car, while doing nothing to ban the car itself.
If a pistol that fires 20 shots in such a short time (or even thirty with slight modification) and can pierce body armor is now considered as “normal” by the gun culture, it shows just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole. I fear we have passed Alice and can only hope we are nearing the bottom.
No, I find it difficult to believe you want to regulate something based on a position of total ignorance that you refuse to correct.
The 1994 ban was an example of such.
Most firearms can penetrate body armor.
Body armor isn’t some magical force field that’s super duper awesome.
So we’re clear, a knife or a stick can penetrate body armor, hell, a .22lr can penetrate body armor under some circumstances. How do I know? I’ve seen it happen (not on a person, luckily).
Are you aware that most of the common ammunition used in hunting rifles will also pierce body armor?
And a person who practiced enough could use speed loaders or moon clips on a 5 or 6 shot revolver to continually reload and cause just as much damage as he could with a semi-auto with a 20 shot magazine. The numbers game you think you’re playing here is actually a form of superstition antis love to buy into.
And, perhaps I missed it here but has it been proven he was using the special ammo on that weapon that penetrates armor?
The armor piercing ammo is only available to Law Enforcement and Military, not the general public. Cite that it was used in this case? Without it, the 5.7 round is nothing special. More facts, no emotions.
The ability to shoot 20 or more rounds quickly has been established since about 1911 or more and has been “normal” for the better part on 100 years.
Not trying to trick you with logic or history or anything else, just more of those fact things.
Check out this death-dealing killing machine. Variants hold up to 40 rounds and are select fire. It can be had in a chambering, the 7.62 variant, known to be extremely penetrative. It even has a detachable shoulder stock that makes it even more deadly. How startling that this hypermodern WMD went into production in 1896.
And, if he did use the special, non civilian, ammunition, what do you think the odds of him not being able to get that gun or a similar one, when he got the banned ammunition are?
I believe that Han Solo shot Greedo with one as well.
All excellent reasons why other people will not even discuss this subject with some of you. You love to make it about technical specs … a bunch of arms techies talking to each other in some circle jerk. The average person does not need technical expertise in sewage or the workings of the human stomach and digestive system to smell and recognize feces for what it is.
The average person isn’t qualified to draft regulations concerning sewerage and other sanitation, either, now is he?
No, but someone with a little knowledge can tell the difference between bull shit, hog shit and chicken shit. There is a difference there too. I didn’t grow up on a farm, but I have learned enough to recognize your ramblings as mostly bull, with a little chicken thrown in for good measure.
YOU want to label some guns as normal. That requires a certain understanding of the specs behind the normal guns as well as the abnormal(?) guns, right? YOU asked what the difference between the shooter’s gun and others. YOU want to grant the shooter’s gun special powers that it doesn’t have. Everyone else is trying to fight your special breed of ignorance, and YOU are not making it easy.
I am making this very easy. This is not about technical specifications. Its about people in a society making their own judgment about what weapons can be within their society and which ones go too far.
In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain “hard-core” pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . **ut I know it when I see it . . . " And Justice Stewart had an excellent legally trained mind who could discuss and explain the most complicated legal concepts and cases with ease.
These discussions seem to end the same way. You gun lovers want folks like me to list some technical specs so you can then attempt to trap us by saying that there are other guns that we don’t want to regulate that are even worse in some way. And on and on and on it goes. Of course, if you keep pushing that line of “thought” there is a simple way around even that.
In the ten years I’ve been reading this board, I can only think of about 9 or 10 examples of someone doing a worse job of persistently arguing his or her case. It was frustrating to read about 3 pages ago, and became funny about 2 pages ago. Now it’s just sad.
You’re saying that “some weapons go too far” without understanding how different weapons function and what their capabilities are. If you pridefully declare your ignorance on the issue and scoff at those who have knowledge, how can you reasonably evaluate which guns too far?
Is it based on what looks scariest? What has the scariest sounding buzzwords attached to it?
Labrador
and what is even weirder is that you persist and get nowhere
Senor Beef and others
So what if I said i do not want any handgun to shoot more than six shots without having to reload one bullet at a time. Is that enough for you?
Did you leave out part of that sentence? I don’t understand what it means.
Weirder?
So you want every firearm that has been built since, say, 1840 to be banned?
Even revolvers (which, in this day and age, aren’t ‘normal’ firearms – it’s abnormal to see someone at the range shooting only a revolver, typically people who shoot revolvers are hobbyists) shoot 6 to 8 shots before being reloaded, and can be reloaded the whole cylinder at once, in under one second.
Now do you see why your arguments are ridiculous? You’re suggesting that because people speed at 140 miles per hour in ferraris, we should all be restricted to driving Model-T’s.