Hillary Clinton Wants to Reinstate Assault Weapons Ban in Wake of Orlando Attack

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Gun manufacturing stats show that there are roughly 5 million AR type rifles in private ownership in this country. FBI statistics showed that in 2014, there were 248 homicides involving rifles. The stats do not clarify just how many of those rifles were semi-automatic, let alone AR style semi-auto rifles.

Even if we assumed that all rifles used in homicides in 2014 were committed with AR style rifles, that still means that only 0.005% of these types of rifles were ever used in a homicide.

If they did decide to bring back the ban, who are you going to send out to the people who own those 5 million to take them? Many LEOs and federal agents (including some of my friends) own their own private AR style rifles. Can you even imagine the cost to the taxpayer that would entail? Is it moral / ethical to turn law abiding citizens into criminals overnight by making privately owned property illegal to own? Especially, if 99.995% of these privately owned pieces of property have not been used in a crime?

If that is your logic, then you should also support banning alcohol because people die in drunk driving wrecks, banning muslims because some of them commit acts of terror, banning knives because people get stabbed, etc.

Your appeals to emotion and dancing on the graves of victims will not change the facts. If Hillary makes the assault weapons ban a part of her platform, she will lose the election.

originally posted by: Kryties
Found this on Facebook, realised it is highly appropriate here:

"mass shootings"
google "austraila mass murders"

lots of arson, stabbing & blunt force...

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

Acts of one person? have you conveniently forgot Sandy hook and columbine because you are a gun owner?

As previously stated, Columbine occurred during the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban.

So please tell me, how banning "assault weapons" would have stopped the Pulse shooting.

a reply to: SonOfThor

I am a LEO and do not support, nor would I participate in confiscation of firearms of any type.

Let those that want to confiscate go door to door and see what happens...

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Melen

Just injecting a little bit of clarity as a firearms owner who hunts and also participates in competitive shooting, usually IDPA / defensive pistol shooting.

A semi-automatic rifle and a semi-auto pistol would shoot at almost the same exact rate, depending on the individual firing them.

DOJ stats also show the majority of gun crime in this country is committed with handguns, often related to gang violence and the illicit drug trade. (i.e. Chicago, Baltimore).

This is a good point, and it's details like this that have to be taken into account no matter what, as a country, we do about this.

If course she wants to ban guns

This country is going south...

originally posted by: neo96

See because here in the US of A.

We have that GD piece of paper called the US constitution.

You want to evoke (hopefully I used the right invoke/evoke word here) the constitution while referring to it as a "GD piece of paper". Do I even need to point out the problem with that? Where's the respect you supposedly have for said document?

a reply to: Melen

Oh SO NOW people think that piece of paper should be 'respected'.

When the anti gunners for 80 YEARS has done FAR WORSE.

Obama is deluded. He knows the GOP will never agree to that.

The guy is just wasting our time…he should resign he’s not doing anything.

The US government is at a stalemate:

Cant even chose a required SCOTUS.

Obama knows that they didn’t do the assault ban when children were slaughtered so why does he think they’ll do it now

Ridiculous, just empty rhetoric

Obama, Hillary, Trump, Bernie?

As a country were finished

This country is in a state of loss

a reply to: Melen

…at the last second he decided to call 911 and pledge allegiance to ISIS? Does this not seem weird to anyone else?

…but to me this all seems a bit … off. The ISIS affiliation almost seems like an afterthought.

Maybe ISIS has nothing to do with this at all. Something we'll never know, because I doubt the public will ever be allowed to know all the details.

Plus the other two issues, guns and gays. Thats why I stayed out of this one pretty much. Its too 'neat', too inclusive of all the issues the government media mind meld is currently fostering.

The war on terror, gun control and sexual preference, all in one package.

The odds against it in Vegas would be astronomical.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited people from buying semi-automatic guns that were considered assault weapons.

-Op Source

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

Wiki
Civilian use stated.


Would the ban stop a security guard/GS4 security guard who had terrorist intents/up bringing/internet brainwashing, etc. who may have joined the security team for gun training/easier access to buying one? Not even to mention being investigated by the FBI three times.

EDIT: Never mind, video does not allow embedding

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Kryties

How about doing a little homework before copy/pasting ignorant lies?

MONASH UNIVERSITY SHOOTING - MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA 2009

2011 HECTORVILLE SEIGE - AUSTRALIA

LOGAN SHOOTING 2014

TRY AGAIN.

MASS SHOOTINGS are defined as 4 or more people dead

None of those you listed fulfill that criteria.

In your own words "How about doing a little homework before copy/pasting ignorant lies? - TRY AGAIN".

P.S. And take a chill pill too mate, this is a discussion, not a forum for you to yell your opinions at other people.

a reply to: Kryties

Looks like Australia fixed it with a pencil.

Changed the definitions.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Kryties

Looks like Australia fixed it with a pencil.

Changed the definitions.

We did nothing of the sort. Stop talking nonsense.

en.wikipedia.org...

Mass murder (sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction") is the act of murdering a number of people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time. The FBI defines mass murder as murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders.