- Thread starter nick338
- Start date
I don't think he was suggesting that the type of firearm dictates the type of murder. However, I do believe the points he made has a lot to do with why we are seeing the AR has the weapon of choice most often, with handguns coming in a close second at least in the classification of "mass shootings", eliminating gang violence from the equation. The timeline since the AWB sunset correlates to where we are at today.
For the same reasons the AR platform is an incredible defensive weapon, it becomes the weapon of choice to carry out these shootings. It's lightweight, available in most areas, easily accessorized to fit an individual's needs, high capacity and low recoil. Unless you are trying to conceal a weapon, why in God's name would anyone use anything but an AR? It's all the same reasons why we own them and why they want to take them.
But just because a common tool is used in a manner it wasn't designed for, that doesn't give politicians or government the right to take them away or try and classify them as weapons of war to push their agenda.
Dumb as Biden is, making a comment like "if you want to take on the federal government, you need some F-15's. You don't need an AR-15", only proves how totally useless he really is. Just ask the Taliban or the Iraqi insurgents if that comment has any truth to it.
I chose not to correct @Hippy_Steve yesterday about the Clinton AWB, but today I will correct him and @nick338 as they both want to twist data to suit there needs. There was never a ban on the sale of any "Assault Weapon". The AWB banned importation and features but never pulled an item off the market. The AR has not been the weapon of choice, far more Glocks with and without illegal mods are used in the mass shootings being reported. The media is willing to point out semi auto rifles because they are complicit in the political drive to ban them. How many gang shootings are reported as mass shootings then attributed to gangs three days later? How fast has the Lansing shooting dropped out of the media since it doesn't fit the media narrative? For either perpetrator or firearms used. Why hasn't the media asked how a felony crime was pled down to a misdemeanor instead of asking how a misdemeanor conviction didn't block legal firearms purchases?
You may want to get your facts straight. The Federal ban in 1994 specifically notes a detachable magazine and 2 or more of the features to classify it as an assault weapon under the ban. Listed are "pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, bayonet mount, flash hider or threaded barrel to accommodate one, and grenade launcher. This effectively banned all AR rifles at the time on the merit of just features alone and in addition the law specifically names Colt, Kalashnikov and FN and some lesser names as models banned from sale.
Regardless of the media's motives, all mass shootings are being reported long before the type of firearm has even been disclosed so I'm not sure why you're insinuating it's only reported when it's a semi-auto rifle. Pay attention, the reason the Michigan State incident has less coverage is based on race, as are the gang related incidents and that's all I'll say on that.
And please don't accuse me of twisting anything to suit whatever needs you think I have. It was a very basic post on what has led to why people are using AR's to carry out mass shootings and not a bolt-action rifle.
The flaw in your explanation is that AR's were never removed from the market. Combinations of features were removed but AR's never left the market. Some of the arms you listed only left the market due to import bans. Sorry that I lived through the ban and bought rifles and magazines during the ban.
You can find mass shootings with any type of firearm including revolvers. Your statement is as manufactured as the parameters for the DoJ Crime Gun Intelligence and Analysis Report earlier this month to justify gun control laws over criminal control.
Last edited:
How old are you?
There were “post ban “ ARs for sale everywhere. Along with “pre ban” uppers and collapsible stocks.
Only thing the baby hampered was mags
More of changed the price on mags. The only good thing that came out of the Clinton laws was the Glock 30. Make a 10 round mag and design the gun around it.
Back to the OP. Why are these people targeting schools? And it's not just the fact that they are "gun-free zones" (but it helps).
Public education has been practicing social engineering for decades, and this is the results. But no one is looking at that data (because it is their leftist agenda). As mentioned earlier, this new generation of "trophies for everyone" (socialism) doesn't happen in the adult world. These kids are just going back to the source of their problem. Some of you are old enough to remember the recitation of the "Pledge" and the "Lord's Prayer" every morning in home room. There are many other reasons, but public education is where it starts and continues today.
Public education has been practicing social engineering for decades, and this is the results. But no one is looking at that data (because it is their leftist agenda). As mentioned earlier, this new generation of "trophies for everyone" (socialism) doesn't happen in the adult world. These kids are just going back to the source of their problem. Some of you are old enough to remember the recitation of the "Pledge" and the "Lord's Prayer" every morning in home room. There are many other reasons, but public education is where it starts and continues today.
I left the military in '95 so old enough to remember going into a dealer in San Diego and being told unless it's a pre-ban weapon I wouldn't be seeing any AR's for sale. Same thing when I returned to NY after the military. Anything that failed the 2 feature test was gone unless it was pre-ban. Are you guys suggesting that a Colt AR-15 produced after the ban went into effect had a pistol grip and threaded muzzle/flash hider and was being sold to civilians?
The point of this was associate the timeline of the sunset on the ban, the internet and social media coming alive to generate interest and the explosion of new gun companies designing their own versions of the platform and all the accessories to make it more viable, while fighting wars on 2 fronts, that has enabled it to be used under less desirable circumstances. Sure mass shootings are carried out by all types of firearms but unless you want to get into the analytics of why certain ones are used such as availability, cost, environment, background of the shooter, mental state, concealment, the list goes on and on, the reasons why the AR is used are the reasons I already posted above and the same reasons why the media can't wait to report it and liberals can't wait to try and ban them.
And if you think race has nothing to do with the lack of coverage I'll say this. If George Floyd was white the story is gone in a day and Kyle Rittenhouse never becomes a household name.
What was the functional difference of all the ARs sold during the ban with bare muzzles or pinned muzzle brakes versus the pre bans ?
Lol
Definition of assault weapon[edit]
Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the definition of "semi-automatic assault weapon" ("SAW") (commonly shortened to "assault weapon") included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[15]Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
- Grenade launcher
- Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
- Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
- Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
- A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
- A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Show me where it states the rifle was legal with a threaded barrel as long as the muzzle device was pinned or welded and was there a ban on a common use firearm or wasn't there? If Colt decided to produce non-threaded barrels to skirt the law then there was an obvious reason for it, just like we do in certain states today to get around things.
He answered his own argument and ignored "combination of features". Shave off the bayonet lug and put a target crown on the barrel, Colt sold them by the thousands.
You guys act like politicians were smart enough at the time they put the ban in place to assume that the end user would find ways around it and that would make them safe to own. The intent to remove them from the street was in place and when the ban expired the industry took off-which was the point of the argument-not how people got around the ban.
The industry started to take off in 1989 with the Roberti-Roos AWB which banned these weapons by name. It kicked in the nitrous oxide with the subsequent bans by feature. The sunset of the federal ban did nothing for availability except lowered prices for magazines.
You have a point there. Let your hair grow out and you can cover it up.
Seriously, though, yeah, thinking politicians are smart is asking for the impossible.
It absolutely did. There was no more feature test for manufacturers to worry about so availability was increased as a result of substantially more companies building their own variants or parts to support them. If the demand was not there, then maybe everyone can explain how the industry went from 29 companies to 500 in support of the AR-15 between the years 2000-2015 and is likely far more today.
I feel like mass shootings will end if we do a couple of things.
The news media don't report the individuals name and try to uncover their backstory.
The trial is private and not telecasted.
The shooter is then killed, and body dumped in the middle of the ocean.
And as a society, we simply "try" to forget them from memory.
The news media don't report the individuals name and try to uncover their backstory.
The trial is private and not telecasted.
The shooter is then killed, and body dumped in the middle of the ocean.
And as a society, we simply "try" to forget them from memory.
No.
Some people should be in mental asylums.
And the legal drug pushers have a hand in this also. Not to mention that fbi groomers
Careful. Gun ownership shouldn't be an "entitlement". We may have valid reasons to deny a natural right to someone, as in imprisonment, but the default should be everyone else has those natural rights.
