@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:Slide rules and computers are both used to do calculations but there is all the difference in the world in the two. There is that much difference between a semi-automatic an assault weapon.
That is why it is wrong to treat semi-automatic weapons as if they are some kind of problem for society.
Zardoz wrote:Your argument is not with me it is with Colt, the manufacturer of assault weapons. The manufacturer of assault weapons wants to make absolute sure that the public knows that their assault weapon will kill more in less time than other manufacturers of assault weapons. That is the selling point. Mass murderers choose the assault weapons that will kill the most.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then why do you need an assault weapon that fires at a 900 round a minute rate?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you are hunting with assault weapons you must want to kill the whole herd.
Assault weapons have been tightly regulated for the past 85 years, and people are only allowed to have them if they were manufactured and registered more than 33 years ago.
No legally-registered assault weapon has ever been used in a crime.
Zardoz wrote:Laws are limited to what is written not to what you can imagine. Many a court case has been lost because people imagined there was far more then what was written.
It is written that the government is forbidden from passing gun laws that cannot be justified with a good reason. Nothing about this is imaginary.
Zardoz wrote:Bump stocks only take advantage of the already existing design capabilities of assault weapons.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A bump stock is just another way to make an assault weapon fire more like a full-automatic, the full-automatic firing mechanism is another.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you can ban a bump stock because it makes an assault weapon fire faster, you can ban the full-automatic mechanism.
Assault weapons do not need bump stocks. Bump stocks were used on ordinary guns.
Zardoz wrote:Pistol grips don't increase the firing rate of assault weapons but they make mass murderers job much easier.
That is incorrect. Pistol grips do nothing to make murder any easier.
Zardoz wrote:When tools are designed, they are designed for a specific purpose such as killing a large number of people or for a butter knife to spread butter.
Semi-auto guns with pistol grips are often designed for hunting or self defense.
Zardoz wrote:The primary purpose for making assault weapons is to kill large numbers of people.
Maybe so, but that's nothing to do with the ordinary rifles like a semi-auto AR-15.
Zardoz wrote:Hunting can be done with a simple rifle.
Semi-auto AR-15s are simple rifles. They make great hunting guns.
Zardoz wrote:If you are really serious about committing mass murder assault weapons are the way to go.
Maybe so. But they've been tightly regulated for the past 85 years, and people can only own them if they were manufactured and registered more than 33 years ago.
No crime has ever been carried out with a legally registered assault weapon in the US.
Zardoz wrote:There are two completely different design of weapons one is a semi-automatic and one is an assault weapon.
That is why I keep saying that it is wrong to treat them the same.
Zardoz wrote:Again, your argument is with Colt who claim their assault weapons can fire at a 900 round a minute rate.
That is incorrect. My argument is with wrongly applying "their claim about full-auto weapons" to semi-auto weapons.
Zardoz wrote:The superior design of an assault weapons makes them capable of firing 900 rounds a minute rate.
That's nothing to do with an ordinary gun like a semi-auto AR-15.
Zardoz wrote:You need to read the specifications for assault weapons. The only difference between the semi-automatics version and the full automatics is a little modification of the firing mechanism. Same gun just one small difference.
The difference between "full-auto" and "not full-auto" is considerable.
Zardoz wrote:What might not be possible for you is possible for mass murderers.
That is incorrect. What applies to me applies to them. If a shooter wants to hit their target they need to aim.
Zardoz wrote:We know the Dayton shooter fired 41 rounds in 30 seconds. Do you think he had time to aim?
I know he had to aim.
Zardoz wrote:Assault weapons, according to the doctors that treated the wounded in El Paso, said they have never seen such severe injuries except on battle fields. Twenty-two people died and 30 others were injured with baseball sized exit wounds according to doctors that treated them. Twenty-two dead is hardly minor injuries. The crowd might disperse after 22 are dead and 30 injured.
No assault weapon was used in that shooting. No legally registered assault weapon has ever been used in any crime in the US.
Zardoz wrote:Mass murders have proved over and over again that firing into crowds kills large number of people. How many times do you have to see it happen before you can see reality? You want to ignore reality and imagine what could happen.
These murderers have always had to aim their weapon.
Zardoz wrote:People in confined spaces often can't escape fires let alone a mass murder armed with an assault weapon.
No crime has ever been committed with a legally-owned assault weapon in the US.
Zardoz wrote:You need not hit a vital area, a major artery wit a bas ball sized exit wound will make you just as dead.
Such an artery would constitute something vital.
Zardoz wrote:We are talking about weapons of war not pistol grips.
Weapons of war have been tightly regulated for the past 85 years, and can only be owned if they were manufactured and registered more than 33 years ago.
No legally-owned weapon of war has ever been used in a crime in the US.
Zardoz wrote:Your design has to be a major improvement over the current inventions or it will not qualify for a patent.
That is incorrect. It merely has to be a unique invention.
Zardoz wrote:When you design guns to fire hundreds of rounds a minute you want a kill rate of hundreds.
That's nothing to do with ordinary guns like a semi-auto AR-15.
Zardoz wrote:There would be nothing left of a squirrel with the assault weapons used by mass murderers.
No mass murderers have ever used an assault weapon.
Zardoz wrote:Assault weapons are key ban them and the mass murder rate goes down when assault weapon ban expired mass murders went through the roof.
That is incorrect. No crime has ever been committed with a legally-owned assault weapon.
Zardoz wrote:I have never seen even one mass murderer hold a gun at his shoulder. The surveillance cameras show the pistol grip held at waist height.
Can you produce a cite for this surveillance video?
Zardoz wrote:When your shooting at the equivalent of the broad side of the barn there is no need to aim.
Murderers don't shoot at the equivalent of the broad side of a barn.
Zardoz wrote:Tens of thousands of Americans have been slaughtered with assault weapons
No they haven't.
Zardoz wrote:Why don't the mass murderers miss when holding assault weapons at waist height.
Mass murderers do not use assault weapons, and they don't hold their weapons at waist height.
Zardoz wrote:A pistol grip makes it much harder to strip the gun from a mass murderer's hand.
That is incorrect. Guns can be grasped without a pistol grip.
Zardoz wrote:You can see how a traditional rifle is held it is not nearly as secure.
It is possible to securely hold a gun that does not have a pistol grip.
Zardoz wrote:The weapon was designed to be held at waist level
That is incorrect. It was designed to be fired from the shoulder.
Zardoz wrote:that is why there is a pistol grip on the assault weapon in the first place.
That is incorrect. It was created because removable/collapsible/adjustable stocks are not easily grasped.
Zardoz wrote:Police response times give a mass murderer a very limited amount of time aiming wastes precious time if you need only hit the broad side of a barn there is no need to aim.
Murderers are not trying to hit the broad side of a barn. Therefore they still need to aim.
Zardoz wrote:If you had a barrel full of fish moving rapidly taking aim would be a waste of time.
Not if you want to hit your target.
Zardoz wrote:In the Pulse night club people are not standing still waiting on you to shoot them it would be a nightmare trying to aim.
It's still the only way to hit the target.
Zardoz wrote:It is easy to tell where the bullets are going and adjust them to hit the targets when you have so many rounds.
Maybe if you have full auto and tracers. Not so easy when you don't have full auto and are not using tracers.
Zardoz wrote:What played a part in the death tool was the assault weapons.
That is incorrect. Assault weapons played no part in these killings.
Zardoz wrote:One woman in Las Vegas was shot three times if he was aiming, he should have killed her on the first shot.
Sometimes people miss their target.
Zardoz wrote:Most mass murders where large numbers are killed used assault weapons all the record mass murders used assault weapons.
That is incorrect. No legally-owned assault weapon has ever been used in a crime in the US.
Zardoz wrote:The exact same reason for banning bump stocks applies ten times more to assault weapons.
Not when no legally-owned assault weapon has ever been used in a crime in the US.
Zardoz wrote:That is why we banned bombs years ago so the banning of assault weapons should be no surprise.
Assault weapons have been tightly restricted for 85 years, and people can only own them if they were manufactured and registered more than 33 years ago.