I bet nothing happens except prices skyrocket.

[pcgeek11]

So if you got shot by a 22LR, would your response "well at least it wasn't a larger caliber or hollow point"?
Or would your response be "fuuuuuuuck I need medical attention"?

You're asking someone to establish a legal definition, which is an inherently arbitrary process. You're literally defining something that is currently undefined. The only thing that matters is that everyone agrees on the definition.

Since short barrel rifles are already defined and regulated (unless you'd like to expound upon the entire sensibility of a 16" cutoff, it's just as arbitrary), I'm simply picking up where SBR leaves off.

I'm open to alternatives that are clear, concise, lack loopholes (intended or not), and are likely to prevent mass shootings. So far you've offered nothing.

Your turn.

Twisting and turning...

I didn't define anything, You did.

That is what I said to begin with that they would First have to define what is an Assault Rifle.

Then you defined it as, let me quote:

" semiautomatic firearm with a barrel length exceeding 18". next? " and then said " Hey you asked and I gave you a clear and unambiguous answer. ".

By your definition my 22 LR squirrel and tin can killer would be an assault rifle.

Biden wants to Ban "Assault Rifles" from the OP.
In order to ban something you need to define what that is.
So far there is no definitive answer for the definition of Assault Rifle.

You just want to argue for the sake of argument. Or you could just admit that your clear and unambiguous answer is neither clear or unambiguous.

I don't need to offer anything, and your offering was poor at best and is way too broad.

 

[shortylickens]

Everyone who died at Virginia Tech was shot by a 22.
Everyone who lived was shot by a 9mm.

This is not a great discussion to have. I wanted to discuss the politics of pushing a gun bill right now and for some reason we ALWAYS go back to the gun debate itself.
I should know better by this time.

 

[pcgeek11]

Everyone who died at Virginia Tech was shot by a 22.
Everyone who lived was shot by a 9mm.

This is not a great discussion to have. I wanted to discuss the politics of pushing a gun bill right now and for some reason we ALWAYS go back to the gun debate itself.
I should know better by this time.

Both were hand guns. Biden said he wants to ban assault rifles. In order to ban something you need to define it or it is just lip service.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Twisting and turning...

I didn't define anything, You did.

That is what I said to begin with that they would First have to define what is an Assault Rifle.

Then you defined it as, let me quote:

" semiautomatic firearm with a barrel length exceeding 18". next? " and then said " Hey you asked and I gave you a clear and unambiguous answer. ".

By your definition my 22 LR squirrel and tin can killer would be an assault rifle.

Biden wants to Ban "Assault Rifles" from the OP.
In order to ban something you need to define what that is.
So far there is no definitive answer for the definition of Assault Rifle.

You just want to argue for the sake of argument. Or you could just admit that your clear and unambiguous answer is neither clear or unambiguous.

I don't need to offer anything, and your offering was poor at best and is way too broad.

And by the definition I proposed, a 22LR semi auto, 16" barrel rifle (or greater) would indeed be classified as an assault weapon because it possesses the characteristics of an "assault weapon" that I proposed.

You're trying to make it sound like something that's used on small game couldn't possibly hurt a human. I don't care what caliber the rifle is or isn't. That is irrelevant to the definition I proposed. The fact that this confused you is hilarious because there are only 2 simple criteria. Barrel length, and firing mechanism type. That's it.

All you're doing is saying "WRONG TRY AGAIN" without offering anything constructive to the discussion.

 

[K1052]

This is not a great discussion to have. I wanted to discuss the politics of pushing a gun bill right now and for some reason we ALWAYS go back to the gun debate itself.
I should know better by this time.

Wether the Biden admin publishes a gun bill seems largely irrelevant to the nutters who are convinced Kamala Harris and the UN are going to be crashing through their windows any second to confiscate them as it is. There is literally nothing that will convince them otherwise.

Realistically there are about a dozen higher priority items on the Dem agenda then presto it is 2024 already. The prospect for any real gun regulation seems so vanishingly small that it isn't worth worrying about even if the occasional statement comes out. If you are a single issue gun voter you're already voting against the Democrats, those are not gettable people.

 

[pcgeek11]

And by the definition I proposed, a 22LR semi auto, 16" barrel rifle (or greater) would indeed be classified as an assault weapon because it possesses the characteristics of an "assault weapon" that I proposed.

You're trying to make it sound like something that's used on small game couldn't possibly hurt a human. I don't care what caliber the rifle is or isn't. That is irrelevant to the definition I proposed. The fact that this confused you is hilarious because there are only 2 simple criteria. Barrel length, and firing mechanism type. That's it.

All you're doing is saying "WRONG TRY AGAIN" without offering anything constructive to the discussion.

Just pointing out how silly your definition of an assault rifle is. At least you got the barrel length correct this time.

I never made the claim that it couldn't hurt a human. I'm not confused at all.

You are making this into something that it never was. What I said was an Assault Rifle needs to be defined before it can be banned.
Do you disagree with this statement?
Yes or No answer is all that is needed.

I would be more inclined toward magazine capacity limits. That makes more sense than classifying a 22 caliber squirrel rifle as an assault rifle, that is a joke.

 

[Bitek]

Just pointing out how silly your definition of an assault rifle is. At least you got the barrel length correct this time.

I never made the claim that it couldn't hurt a human. I'm not confused at all.

You are making this into something that it never was. What I said was an Assault Rifle needs to be defined before it can be banned.
Do you disagree with this statement?
Yes or No answer is all that is needed.

I would be more inclined toward magazine capacity limits. That makes more sense than classifying a 22 caliber squirrel rifle as an assault rifle, that is a joke.

Yeah, that's why I suggested on pg1 the only ~reasonable action could be mag cap limits (on the larger caliber rifles.) Even then its a bit theoretical in that you are forcing an active shooter to slow down and reload more often, carry more mags, possibly giving a target a chance to escape or counter attack.

Overall I look at in terms of somehow nerfing the DPS (damage per sec) like you would in a video game, but that's difficult to do IRL, without going making silly regs.

Still better IMO is expanded background checks so lunatics, criminals and terrorists can't easily get hands on high power weaponry quite so easily, but the pool of guns out there is so large, even that's just a speedbump for someone that's determined.

 

[Bitek]

And by the definition I proposed, a 22LR semi auto, 16" barrel rifle (or greater) would indeed be classified as an assault weapon because it possesses the characteristics of an "assault weapon" that I proposed.

You're trying to make it sound like something that's used on small game couldn't possibly hurt a human. I don't care what caliber the rifle is or isn't. That is irrelevant to the definition I proposed. The fact that this confused you is hilarious because there are only 2 simple criteria. Barrel length, and firing mechanism type. That's it.

All you're doing is saying "WRONG TRY AGAIN" without offering anything constructive to the discussion.

I think damage potential has to be considered. You can't really compare a .223 to a .22lr as per your example and say they are the same.

And even the semi-auto is suspect in practicality. With practice you can rip off a lot of rounds on an old fashioned lever action cowboy rifle. Watch this boss:

Key difference I see here is that these rifles hold a limited amount of rounds, so you wouldn't a situation where someone can easily rain down hellfire and shoot 600 ppl like in Vegas, or waste 44 people in a nightclub, all in a matter of minutes.

You'd be pressed to even wound people with a .22 over a 100yds.
The cowboy rifles are highly capable of self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, but ultimately limited in capacity for mass murder.

Again tho, it seemly like a waste of time to try and legislate cleanly around this as the end result is nothing passed and just a bunch of pissed off people. That or end up passing some hand handed law, then people are really pissed off, just work around the clumsy law anyway for the short amount of time until Rs take back govt on a wave of backlash.

 

[Bitek]

Dang it. got me watching cowboy shooting vids all morning. Check out some of these old timers:

 

[Torn Mind]

Gun market dies with a Republican in office while they thrive with a Democrat.

Wouldn't be surprised if the makers are way too aware and bought a few Democrats to stir up fear to save the industry.

Gun control activists are emotionally irrational and the people they will be hitting are not who they think are hitting. The faulty presumption behind their policy proposal is the assumption that the government has an all-seeing eye at the state level to execute the laws.

I'm under isolation guidelines right now for coronavirus, but if I tell no one, I am actually de facto free to go wherever they don't check you for coughs and only on my honor do I have to follow the guidelines. The same applies to the law of murder. Everyone is physical free to try and kill another. It's just that you might attract the attention of the state soon afterwards. Prostitutes or lonely people with no contacts likely will not be given the time of day and hence make for pray.

Not to mention while actual perps have been young, disturbed individuals, the caricature of hillybilly Harold and Redneck Rick is well-engrained in the minds of anti-gun folks, as if he travelled more than a few thousand miles from McKee, Kentucky to Florida to do his work.

Given the nature of Biden's home state(small, revenue strapped, highly reliant on less-and-ethical folks needing a secretive "corporation" reaping the legal pro-business case law situation there), he's willing to help stimulate any and all industries need of some dollars. Just that some forms of stimuli have to be extremely creative. All while making sure most people don't pick up on it.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Some of you really need to spend more time telling this face to face to the parents of children murdered in school shootings if you think its so easy to "just move on" and accept that's just part of living in America. Something to consider for those of you that can't seem to understand why Democrat politicians keep trying. Plus its not like most people support stricter gun regulations or anything. Oh, right they do, so you're arguing for the Democrats to become Republicans and cater to the vocal minority of assholes making threats of violence for not getting their way. And the saddest part is how many of you same people have railed on the Democrats for being cowards yet you're literally asking them to just give up and cave to the whims of terrorists.

The best way to prevent mass shootings is to unfuck the economy and our society.

300 million semi-automatic guns aren't getting "bought back" confiscated, banned, etc.

So, I'd say the Democrats should start by nuking the filibuster, and start legislating the way they say they'd like to legislate but for the filibuster.

Er, Columbine happened in an affluent area in the late 90s when the economy was booming. Most of the mass shootings had nothing whatsoever to do with economic issues.

As for unfucking society...the same people blocking anything being done about guns are the same assholes causing the society to be fucked. You inherently have to overcome those assholes to achieve either. I find it bizarre that so many of you are going "yeah but they're REALLY crazy about guns!" so we should just look the other way why they continue to amass arsenals, all the while they talk about murdering people. Its fucking nuts and its more chickenshit than how Chamberlain acted towards Hitler.

 

[nickqt]

Some of you really need to spend more time telling this face to face to the parents of children murdered in school shootings if you think its so easy to "just move on" and accept that's just part of living in America. Something to consider for those of you that can't seem to understand why Democrat politicians keep trying. Plus its not like most people support stricter gun regulations or anything. Oh, right they do, so you're arguing for the Democrats to become Republicans and cater to the vocal minority of assholes making threats of violence for not getting their way. And the saddest part is how many of you same people have railed on the Democrats for being cowards yet you're literally asking them to just give up and cave to the whims of terrorists.



Er, Columbine happened in an affluent area in the late 90s when the economy was booming. Most of the mass shootings had nothing whatsoever to do with economic issues.

As for unfucking society...the same people blocking anything being done about guns are the same assholes causing the society to be fucked. You inherently have to overcome those assholes to achieve either. I find it bizarre that so many of you are going "yeah but they're REALLY crazy about guns!" so we should just look the other way why they continue to amass arsenals, all the while they talk about murdering people. Its fucking nuts and its more chickenshit than how Chamberlain acted towards Hitler.

You're not going to confiscate 300,000,000 guns in the US. It's never going to happen. And if it were even attempted, it would cause a hot civil war.

Also, 99.9% of guns aren't be used in a criminal manner, and never will be.

And finally, disarming non-fascists is a tragically hilarious own goal when, as you bring up, non-fascists are chickenshit for long enough that fascists take over.

You ain't taking anyone's fucking guns. Why shed votes even bringing it up?