Illinois bans assault weapons, making country safer.

@zaryia:

My reasoning is going by dictionary definitions. You're telling me they are wrong.

Like I said, in these threads far right wingers said dictionaries are wrong. That's crazy.

If someone said there are two genders they aren't wrong according to the definitions you provided. Especially if they are referring to a particular Science.

@zaryia:

"any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms"

That doesn't define it. I'm not saying it's wrong I'm simply stating that could be applied to almost any gun which is exactly what the left means to do.

No. They specifically said the other definition and fields of science using it as such were fake.

Assault weapons are a real thing and there are multiple dictionary definitions of the word. It's a real thing.

No field of hard science concerns itself with gender. Gender is a social construct, and thus only really explored in sociology. There is some stuff on gender identity, and that is OVERWHELMINGLY in support of the validity of transgender identities (can't comment enough on genders outside the bimodal distribution). Research done on Trans Folk are providing positive results. People trying to use pseudoscience to justify bigotry have a pretty weak grasp on biology.

Assault Weapons are a term we have been using for half a century now. And the definition is used to describe any automatic or semi-automatic weapon. The fact that most weapons are auto or semi-auto is completely irrelevent. No idea why anyone would be pushing that angle. The goal of a regulation like this could possibly be to push arms manufacturers to develop non-assault weapons, ie weapons that aren't automatic or semi-automatic.

That said, that may not be necessary as the ban may not hold up in court.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/1/13/23552551/illinois-assault-weapons-ban-supreme-court-constitutional-scholars-guns-high-capacity-magazines

It's a deflection because it's intent is to distract. It does't matter how you choose to label it. The point is finding a way to make things better. Semantics are important, but they shouldn't be used to stop progress.

@InEMplease: distract from what? And like I said before banning any gun will not change anything. If guns were the problem than Switzerland would be having the same issues. Explosives are illegal and that did not stop the bombing in Nashville or the Oklahoma City bombing. AR's were banned when Columbine happened. Evil people will continue to commit acts of evil no matter what the law is. Banning AR's will not make things better.

You can try to scale things 1:1 but that's just not how it works. My position is make it harder overall for people to get weapons' that can do a lot of harm very quickly. And I say limiting purchases of AR's will make things better.

@InEMplease: A revolver can do a whole lot of damage very quickly if the person holding the gun knows what they are doing. A semi-auto pistol can do a whole lot of damage very quickly regardless of the size of the magazine. It only takes a fraction of a second to reload them. And again if the guns was the problem than Switzerland would have the same issues. Politicians care more about pushing agendas than peoples security. They are putting the attention into the wrong places.

Yes, and you are falling for it.

@InEMplease: falling for what?

The facade of pretending to care without actually caring.

@Maroxad:

Assault Weapons are a term we have been using for half a century now. And the definition is used to describe any automatic or semi-automatic weapon

Jesus christ you can tell you know absolutely nothing about guns. By that definition virtual every pistol is an assault weapon.

@zaryia:

Assault weapons are a real thing and there are multiple dictionary definitions of the word.It's a real thing.

Then clearly define that thing for me. According to posters on this forum it's any semi automatic gun. Is that how leftist define it now?

This should be a simple question for you.

If I asked you if copper was a metal you would say yes.

So is a glock 30 an assault weapon? Yes or no

I don't think you realize how weak your argument is. It doesn't matter that most pistols are assault weapons, because as it is, most firearms, including pistols ARE assault weapons. The fact that I brought this point up and it completely eluded you...

You are literally arguing against the dictionary using mental gymnastics, and it is absolutely hilarious to see.

I'm not arguing against the dictionary definition because the definition doesn't define it. It simply states how it's used. Ironically you are doing exactly as I expected what far leftist would do. Trying to define any semi automatic weapon as an Assault weapon to justify a ban.

Most pistols by law are not considered assault weapons as they would require a detachable stock or second grip.

The sad part is many leftist trying to pass laws are about as clueless as you 🤣

@silentchief: Yes you are arguing against the definition. It is very much defined there, you just disagree with it. And now trying to rationalize your delusions with mental gymnastics.

Edit: As for what is a assault weapon, that varies both on Federal and State Law. But common attributes include detachable magazines, pistol grip, gunstock and a designed and configured for armed combat and rapid fire. The reason we cannot give you a super concrete definition is because the definition varies based on the legislature.

As a result, your "Legal Definition" stuff doesnt work. But keep failing. I wonder what easily refutable rhetoric you will use next. Failing is your forte afterall.

@Maroxad: "The reason we cannot give you a super concrete definition is because the definition varies based on the legislature."

Lol

Just give up and say what you really want, you want to ban all firearms.

The leftists? I'm just citing the top dictionaries which are superior than you (by exponential margins) and show you are objectively wrong. Are you saying the dictionaries are all wrong? Yes or no will do.

For Gender and Assault Weapon you are incorrect on a purely factual basis.

Fiction. Just admit it, 11 year olds are better at understanding and accepting definitions than you guys.

Ah yes. The right wing hysteria in full display.

If you are giving the ability to ban any firearm to the government under umbrella terms like "assault weapon" where they can classify any gun they want as an "assault weapon" then yeah... you advocate for letting the government ban any gun they want.

Not at all. I think banning all guns in america is a bad idea.

But for as dumb as the idea is. SilentChief's defense of it is even dumber.

Edit: He should defend it from a utilitarian perspective, not a rhetorical one. He is fighting a losing game here.

Hysteria....check.

1 word response because you know what I'm saying is correct.

check! lol

You're not correct. You're spewing hysterics. Guns are a major problem in this country and we need better control. These weapons were banned previously and no one lost their second amendment right over it.

Stop quoting me out of context and answer the question. The dictionary doesn't define the term. It simply states how the terms us used.

Is a GLOCK 30 an assault weapon? Yes or no?

No I'm not. The definition doesn't define it. You yourself are confused because you have absolutely no clue what it is. You can't define it. Why? Because it was a term created in the 80's by anti gun activist who got destroyed when they tried to call " civilian rifles" " Assault rifles ". So they they changed the term to represent something more vague.

The only thing I'm failing at is wasting my time arguing with someone with no knowledge of the subject who is arguing in bad faith. You haven't refuted anyone and you have proven to me this is a complete waste of time. But go ahead calling every semi automatic weapon an "assault weapon "🤣

When it doesn't pass you can just blame my " bad arguments "

He is 100% correct. Multiple posters think every semi automatic weapon should be subject to the ban.

Yes you are. You are flat out arguing against several dictionary definitions and citations in this thread and you have offered nothing.

If you are gonna accuse others of being ignorant. You should probably cite sources to prove them wrong. Right now you are calling people ignorant as they have demonstrated you wrong by citing various dictionaries. Do you even realize how silly you look in this thread? Even by your own standards (which are rock bottom).

He contradicts himself in his very own post 🤣🤣🤣. Says its " clearly defined" then states this nonsense.

The cognitive dissonance of these people is something truly to behold.

History shows you both wrong.

You literally contradicted yourself in subsequent post

Two quotes from your previous post.

@Maroxadsaid:

Yes you are arguing against the definition. It is very much defined there,

@Maroxadsaid:

The reason we cannot give you a super concrete definition is because the definition varies based on the legislature."

You look like an absolute 🤡

Anybody with the slightest knowledge of guns knows it isn't clearly defined.

any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms

Various means more then one. Not all.

So why don't you give me a " super concrete" definition of it.

Legal Definitions != Dictionary Definitions. If you paid attention, you would see that several of us are bringing up the term Dictionary Definition. Hell, I even brought up the point that the Dictionary Definition (the part that is CLEARLY defined) vs the Legal Definition (which has been muddied to suit certain political agendas).

And while I am at it, the term has been used for longer than the 80's. And was primarily used by the Military.

I dunno enough about Illinois gun laws, to say how Assault Weapons are defined there. And how much the legal definition has been muddied to suit various political ends.

The reason we bring up the General (Dictionary) Definition, is because it is unmuddied by politicians and politically motivated lawyers.

You can read my edit on your previous post to the " Dictionary definition " and why it isn't clearly defined. " various " does not mean " all". Anybody with the most basic reading comprehension and knowledge of guns would know that it isn't clearly defined. It's why the legislative definition's vary because it isn't clearly defined.

And no as usual you are incorrect.

The term was created in the 80s

The millitary used the term " Assault Rifle" to describe a weapon that was fully automatic. Gun advocates created the term " Assault Weapon " because they could not get away with calling "civilian rifles " Assault Rifles.

This like arguing with a middle schooler who heard his teacher say " guns were bad".

It is good enough for most people.

The word saw usage in the 70's too, appearantly even the 60's... Nice try though. And did you seriously just cite an editorial from a political advocacy organization as your source? I think I am going with the dictionary on this. Especially as what is written there EXPLICITLY contradicts other sources, which are a lot more neutral.

But you can continue strawmanning others as well. Who exactly is in favor of banning of having every semi-automatic subject to the ban? Certainly not me (which was the accusation you are defending).

No, it's good enough for people that have such little knowledge of the subject and can't distinguish between the word " various " and " all" so they just choose to apply it as they see fit.

The dictionary definition doesn't state when it was created. So yes I'll go with the actual " experts on guns" as opposed to someone who still can't give me a " concrete definition.

Regardless your comment about when the term was created is incorrect.

https://www.allsides.com/blog/define-assault-rifle-assault-weapon-debate-ban

Where Did the Terms Come From?

Credit for inventing the term “assault rifle” is often given to the Germans during World War I and World War II. Germany pioneered the invention of fully automatic rifles during the first half of the 20th century, and referred to one of them as the “Sturmgewehr,” which translates to “storm rifle.” Since then, “assault rifle” has been commonly used to describe fully automatic rifles, which can also be known as machine guns.

The emergence of the term “assault weapon” is first seen in gun advertisements from the 1980’s, but its current popularity seems to have been born out of the gun control movement.

Ad hominems against people who disagree with you, not an actual rebuttal. Lemme roll my eyes some more. But this conversation is over, you are in denial of what the linguists say, while using ad hominems against those who accept those definitions. I will no longer waste my time arguing with someone as intellectually dishonest as you.

On the bright side, you used an actual source this time, and not blatant propaganda. So I will give you some credit there.

That said, the dictionaries whom you are handwaving still point out that the term originated from the 60's and I tend to listen to actual linguists, such as the people who make dictionaries.

But you lied,

@silentchiefsaid:

🤣! Assault Weapon isn't even a thing !

So is the dictionary wrong? They all say it is a thing.

Remember: You're saying every single dictionary entry on the term is incorrect on this matter. That's kinda crazy. You are objectively incorrect.

More importantly,

Any recent counter studies?

He said half a century, but it was possibly just 43-45 years.

One of the earliest uses of the term, or a similar term, in its current meaning was as part of an advertisement in theHutchinson (Kansas) Newsin 1978 for theValmets-7.62x39, theColt AR-15, and theWilkinson Terry carbine.^[21]

Even closer going by that. This is called grasping for straws and nitpicking, he was off by a handful of years at most.

I cut the rest of your post and "debate" out as the cited dictionaries have not been proven wrong yet and they are superior sources than you.

A 2013New York Times (Lean Left bias)articlesays that in the 1980’s, gun manufacturers began using the term “assault” to describe weapons designed for civilian purchase but styled after military-issue weapons.According totheWashington Post (Lean Left bias), many attribute popularization of the term “assault weapon” to a1988 paperwritten by gun control advocate Josh Sugarmann.

And popularized by a gun control advocate in the 1980's. Can you point to a single thing that I said thst wasn't a true?

It is a term used by gun control advocates and popularized by gun control advocates with no clear definition.

I'll ask you for the third time. Is a glock 30 an" Assault weapon "? If you can't answer this I'm going to take that as you simply don't know what an Assault weapon is and the definition has failed to define it for you.

I think you're confused.

One of the earliest uses of the term, or a similar term, in its current meaning was as part of an advertisement in theHutchinson (Kansas) Newsin 1978 for theValmets-7.62x39, theColt AR-15, and theWilkinson Terry carbine.[21

Our two sources are saying 43-45 years, in 1978 and the 80s. Half a century is 50 years. This is nit picking.

Yes,

@silentchiefsaid:

🤣! Assault Weapon isn't even a thing !

@zaryia:

So is the dictionary wrong? They all say it is a thing.

Remember: You're saying every single dictionary entry on the term is incorrect on this matter. That's kinda crazy. You are objectively incorrect.

It's a " thing" made up by gun control advocates that you still can't clearly define. Everything I Said was 100% correct.

When I said it " isn't a thing" I mean it's something they can't define. Not that the word doesn't exist 🤣🤣

Stop with the Strawman.

So you agree it exists and is real. You accept the dictionaries that use that factual term?

That's a start, we're reaching 3rd grader level of understanding! Or do you still think dictionaries' are all fake on this term?

This isn't relevant, the current stance/laws on gun rights were made up by pro-gun advocates in the 70s. Before then the militia understanding of the constitution (as written) was the consensus. Before the pro-gun lobby got their hands on everything. We can go back and forth on this for days.

What matters now is what things objectively mean and what studies objectively show.

@zaryia:

Our two sources are saying 43-45 years, in 1978 and the 80s. Half a century is 50 years.This is nit picking.

Who is the term primarily used by?

I don't know, what kinda' question even is that. But you agree it's real and don't think all major dictionaries are fake right? That's loony.

How do you feel this law was incorrectly using the term?

One of the earliest uses of the term, or a similar term, in its current meaning was as part of an advertisement in theHutchinson (Kansas) Newsin 1978 for theValmets-7.62x39, theColt AR-15, and theWilkinson Terry carbine.

This is the date I am using. Because saying 4 decades doesnt flow as well as half a century. I used half a century. Even if you want to be super technical, you can round it down to 4 decades instead. Not that this detracts from the point.

When presenting numbers we will use rounded numbers.

Again you are missing the point. For someone who keeps talking about " legislative definition's " and their muddy definition's due to political agendas you are somehow ignoring the fact the term was " coined" , " primarily used" and "popularized " by gun control advocates with a political agenda.

That's too bad. All recent research I can find shows this would be good.

We still need more research though, it's crazy how Republicans curtailed even the researching of this topic.

The answer is " Gun Control advocates " which all data clearly indicates.

" The term is real" the object the term is referring to , changes on a whim. That is what I'm saying. It isn't a thing. Meaning it isn't clearly defined.

Example.

Is a glock 30 an Assault weapon?

You should be able to answer this simple question.

Got links to those studies? Bonus points if you also include counter studies.

With the way things are going right now, I think a gun ban would be TERRIBLE for both democracy and for left leaning causes. Hell, I would even go further and urge most americans to get a gun, and some training and gun education. With hate crimes on the rise, the knowledge that everyone is armed can act as a deterrent. At least that is what I could gather from one town where everyone was armed by law.

PDF) Gun Control Policy to Prevent Public Mass Shootings: Regression Lines of Discontinuety Study (Preprint) (researchgate.net)

CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the utility of public health surveillance on gun violence. Surveillance informs policy on whether a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines reduces public mass shootings. As society searches for effective policies to prevent the next public mass shooter, we must consider the overwhelming evidence that assault weapon bans and/or large capacity magazine bans work. CLINICALTRIAL NA

The Effect of Large-Capacity Magazine Bans on High-Fatality Mass Shootings, 1990–2017 | AJPH | Vol. 109 Issue 12 (aphapublications.org)

Conclusion: LCM bans appear to reduce both the incidence of, and number of people killed in, high-fatality mass shootings.

Assessing the potential to reduce deaths and injuries from mass shootings through restrictions on assault weapons and other high‐capacity semiautomatic firearms - Koper - 2020 - Criminology & Public Policy - Wiley Online Library

Restrictions on large-capacity magazines are the most important provisions of assault weapons laws in part because they can produce broader reductions in the overall use of high-capacity semiautomatics that facilitate high-volume gunfire attacks.

There are a few "counter" ones but they are too old IMO and say inconclusive. Still need more research.