Yeah, that was a hunch, but there seems to be something to it.
Assault rifles are becoming mass shooters’ weapon of choice (Washington Post)
Link to Mother Jones table (Google docs) that gives the type of weapon used in mass shootings since 1982.
Do you have anything to say about the claims made repeatedly by the NRA? And its choice for president?
Thanks, really, for that. I got it up until the last part and that’s where I’m confused, too. Still. If I got it wrong, Shodan, my apologies.
I do not know what the “shoulder thing that goes up” is, I do not wish to watch your video, and I think you are avoiding the question. No one has ever argued that bayonet lugs or flash hiders, or…folding stocks? are dangerous. My question was, in what way are they critical - or even useful - for civilians? I am not a libertarian, and I do not accept “I want” as an overriding principle, not even in the context of the Second Amendment.
None of this answers my question.
Well, the NRA have certainly pushed that message for a while now.
It’s explained in the article. I’ll assume you understand how rulings reflect attitudes by justices.
No, they aren’t all power grabs. The un-Constitutional ones are power grabs.
Regards,
Shodan
The MJarticle that I read showed handguns are prefered 3:1. They also make the failed claim that had an AW ban been in place the weapons used would not have been available. They also equate a pistol with a high capacity mag (whatever high capacity means) with a semi auto rifle or shotgun. I guess it depends on how you define a spree killing, an assault weapon, and set a date range. You can make the numbers look any way you want. Looking at the data collected and not the MJ or WaPo editorial, it’s pretty clear that handguns are the time honored preference.
The NRA makes a lot of claims?
I disagree strongly, but I don’t know of any objective, measurable way to quantify it, so it seems that our opinions just differ here.
The infamous “shoulder thing that goes up” is actually a barrel shroud, which Dems want to ban, and which actually does serve a critical function for civilians: they prevent operators from injuring themselves on hot barrels. It’s a safety issue, see, like seat belts or air bags, but the Democrats want to ban them.
If it’s your property, do with it what you want. If you want to ban my red car, you’ll have to convince me that it poses a more serious hazard to the public than my neighbor’s blue car.
To the extent that those things define what an “assault weapon” is or is not, isn’t every argument that “assault weapons” are dangerous just an argument that bayonet lugs, flash hiders, folding stocks, and barrel shrouds are dangerous?
Millions of semi auto rifles and shotguns are used by hunters, competitors and regular folks for target practice or self defense every day. Reduced recoil, lighter weight, and quick follow up shots are many reasons why they are employed for multiple applications. What makes them different from “assault weapons” are the very things you claim not to be dangerous: bayonet lugs, flag hiders, the shoulder things that go up, etc.
I can show you pics of guns that aren’t AW’s, then by cosmetic enhancements become an AW with no change to the functionality of the gun. We aren’t talking about machine guns or what you see in the movies either. One pull of the trigger and and you get exactly one bullet to fire.
Thank you for your confidence in my mental capacity, you sweet talker, you, but you make it hard to reciprocate when you draw conclusions about Garland on insufficient evidence.
When I look at your link, as you suggested, this is what I find:
Why should I take seriously an article that lazily states “the only obvious reason”, as if the writer can’t be arsed to consider other possibilities when there clearly are other possibilities? Is he not aware of Google?
I’ll agree to disagree and leave it at that.
That’s what I’m talking about. If you don’t want to discuss it, it makes me wonder why you dropped in to begin with, but whatever.
Like what? Can you name another “obvious reason”? I think it’s fair to say that Garland only voted to rehear en banc the lower court decision. Readers can infer his position based on that, but it’s not far fetched to think the reason he’d vote to rehear was because he disagreed with either the result, or the reasoning or both. Combine that with the fact that he is an Obama nominee and I think it’s more likely than not that he is opposed to Heller. You may say that’s thin evidence, but it’s sufficient to draw conclusions as to his position.
So be it. The numbers are what they are and unless you significantly cherry pick the data it does not support what you want to believe.
The OP asked if Obama or Bush was a better president for gun owners. Since neither really did anything for or against gun owners other than to flap their gums, I’m willing to concede it’s a draw between the two of them. I have no desire to defend the NRA and it’s marketing claims.
Again, Bush signed the PLCAA. that was hugely beneficial for gun owners because it helped to secure the market that makes guns available to purchase. Without that legislation, we could have seen the closing of small gun stores that would be targeted and couldn’t afford to defend themselves, and even manufacturers as they capitulated to litigation pressure. That’s not even close to a draw.
I can’t name another obvious reason because there is no obvious reason. Apparently, you can’t name one either: “can infer his position”, “not far fetched to think”, “more likely than not”, “sufficient to draw conclusions”. Do I have to point out that obvious is made of far sterner stuff than that?
You dropped into a tangential conversation about wild assertions by gun spokesmen, so I assumed you had something to say about it.
The obvious reason is that Garland would vote to overturn Heller. You said there were other possibilities. There may be - what do you think they are, and do you think those are more likely than the inference that Garland would vote to overturn Heller? It seems that people who are generally in favor of gun control think Garland’s vote to rehear en banc was not indicative of anything, and those who are generally against gun control think Garland’s vote was an indicator of his position. Funny that.
Can you quote me where I did so? I can’t find it.
Yes, in the absence of enough information, one side witholds judgment and the other side jumps to a conclusion. Funny that, indeed.
Garland’s stance on guns, if he has one, is small potatoes anyway in the big picture. He has shown no ideological leaning and has been praised by members of both parties for the job he’s done throughout his career. If he votes regularly for one party, it’s impossible to tell from his record, which makes him an ideal nominee for SCOTUS, wouldn’t you agree? It would be a shame if he was denied a seat because of the myopic vision of one special interest group.