Gun Control needs to be instituted

Yet another, meaningless reply, from your high capacity magazine of distraction.

 

75% of mass shootings involve handguns. so claiming that semi auto rifles are the weapon of choice for mass shootings is inaccurate. some would say a lie. and if the purpose of those firearms is to kill lots of people , why does every police department in the country, routinely issue both "assault weapons" and REAL ASSAULT RIFLES to CIVILIAN police officers. semi auto AR 15s are routinely referred to as "patrol rifles" and most police I know-have them in the trunks of their patrol cars

 

that is a most interesting charge coming from a poster who tends to respond to 2 line posts with a page full of stuff.

 

All you need do, is cite the source of your info on mass shootings, and if it checks out-- meaning that the numbers are based on recent history, so reflect the current circumstances, not those from 20 years ago, before sales of these exploded-- then I will gladly adjust my rhetoric, accordingly.


As to your separate point: I, first, question your implication, that "AR 15s are routinely," issued as " 'patrol rifles'." Whether most police you know, have them, is really not meaningful.

Secondly, if they are kept in their trunks, then clearly they are not meant for most interactions, but for only when circumstances would warrant them.

Thirdly, that cops may (according to you) use military assault rifles, specifically for confronting others with similar weapons, in situations when there are no other people in the immediate vicinity, does not imply that AR-15s are not also good at killing large numbers, in a short time; only that a military assault rifle, gives the shooter a little bit more fire power.

Note, that there is limited, if any, legal way for a civilian to get these military rifles, but that the AR-15s are freely available, by law. Compare this to the fact that no military issue assault rifle has been used in a civilian mass- shooting, but that many, many, many, many AR style rifles have been. This, then, would seem support the case, that if the ARs were just as illegal, we would see far fewer mass shootings, using them.

 

it would be unconstitutional to ban AR 15s since they are in common use for lawful purposes. and let's stop pretending that the left wing jihad against AR 15s is anything more than cultural warfare that is often disguised as a bullshit faux desire for public safety. AR 15s and every other rifle, are used in a small fraction of murders each year

 

Your example, FYI, in no way implies the conclusion, at which you are apparently arriving: that if it is "a full page of stuff," it must then be meaningless.

This is the response, upon which you are commenting:

DEFinning said: ↑
Yet another, meaningless reply, from your high capacity magazine of distraction.



I will offer you this most recent example, of exactly which you speak, from the bottom of page 51--

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-be-instituted.607617/page-51#post-1074243308


I was answering this post--

Rucker61 said: ↑
Yes, the claim is not supported by data, which unsurprisingly you've not even offered.*

-- which was a non sequitur reply, to my prior post. So, I explained why his "point" was non sequitur (as well as a clear double standard, on his part), and also directly answered his charge, with explaining the reason, I'd had no opportunity, in the short time since he had hypocritically demanded documentation from me, to have done the research to provide it. And what answer do I get, for all my time & trouble? This:

Rucker61 said: ↑
Word salad. Not interesting.


Not being "interesting," is not the same thing, FYI, as being meaningless. And the only "word salad," was in Rucker's head-- again, not my fault.

 

interesting but why exactly are the lefties so invested in trying to ban firearms rarely used in murders. I know the answer, I am wondering if one of the people constantly calling for the bans of these rifles actually will give us an honest answer

 

LOL-- are your eyes, giving you trouble, there, old sport?

You: Turtledude said: ↑
75% of mass shootings involve handguns. so claiming that semi auto rifles are the weapon of choice for mass shootings is inaccurate.


Me: DEFinning said: ↑
All you need do, is cite the source of your info on mass shootings, and if it checks out-- meaning that the numbers are based on recent history, so reflect the current circumstances, not those from 20 years ago, before sales of these exploded-- then I will gladly adjust my rhetoric, accordingly.


You: "it would be unconstitutional to ban AR 15s since they are in common use for lawful purposes."


That is no answer, to someone saying, if you simply support your claim with the source, from which you got the information, I will accept your point. What would be expected, if you cannot guess, would be for you to produce the source of your information. Or are you one who can somehow draw information from out of air, or from some other dimensional plane?

Your failure to back up your claim, makes your totally different argument, here, non sequitur. It also makes your previous post-- citing information, as if it were factual, which you apparently cannot support-- then, meaningless. IOW, my entertaining it, as if there was any authoritative source you'd had, to certify your assertion, was a waste of good time: the kind of time that I could have used, to research the matter, for which Rucker had called on me, to supply corroboration. But I have now put in more than my full share of thinking about guns, for the day, to very little purpose, other than to play word games, with you two.

 

I tire of gun banners constantly demanding we repost the same information that we know they have seen. I want you to prove YOUR CLAIM that AR 15s are used in most mass shootings

 

And yet you made a claim, you could not support, that:

Turtledude said: ↑
75% of mass shootings involve handguns. so claiming that semi auto rifles are the weapon of choice for mass shootings is inaccurate. some would say a lie...


Some would say, using your own terms, that you had been lying.

I have already explained-- as if there should have been any need-- that if you actually wanted me to go do the research, you and Rucker would not be wasting my time, with a bunch of false claims, you can't corroborate. You wouldn't be obsessing over meaningless points. And you certainly are in no position to pretend that your own argument has any bulwark of fact, defending it. The facts you call for, from me, are equally available to you.

*Would you not think that "gun banners," or whatever you choose to call your debaters, would tire all the more quickly, of your own preposterous claims, that you know, that we have seen data, which nonetheless, you are unable to produce? One would think, for you to know that others had seen something, you would have had to have seen it, yourself.

Or are you one of those on the Right, who gets their information, from talking to the Wind?

 

have you ever posted ANY fact that even remotely supports your claims that AR 15s are used in Most, many or even a sizable minority of mass shootings. NO. and we have posted the handgun FACTS, You want to restrict rights-the BURDEN IS ON YOU to establish your justifications and you cannot.

 

Gun banners constantly want to talk about "mass murders" or mass shootings since they think that can be used to accentuate their hatred of semi auto rifles. the fact is, all sorts of rifles are rarely used in murders
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

when firearms are used, the vast majority are handguns

 

Correct. The % of mass shootings involving handguns is far higher than 75%.
In 2022, 8 of the 636 mass shootings involved semi-auto rifles.

 

Well I have a concession, of sorts. This site seems to have a comprehensive record of mass shootings, since 2006.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/g...ngs-database-us-events-since-2006/9705311002/


And they do confirm, that semi-automatic handguns, not usually included as "assault weapons," are the most commonly used firearm, in a mass shooting. However, it also says that, by far, the most common mass shooting, is when a man kills his wife & family, and then himself. But, these are not the type of mass shooting, society is now focused upon, but rather those random ones, in public places, in which it is frequently a stranger, who is confronting the victims.

I have not yet seen, I am a little surprised to find, a group categorizing of "public" and non familial mass shootings, with the weapon listed for each given shooting, within that group. So I've had no luck, thus far, coming across readily available, up to date info. I can do more checking, but I am not going to look up every shooting, individually-- we broke a hundred mass shootings, this year, back in March!

I will concede that it is possible that there had been some general truth, to your claims, that semi-automatic handguns are more often used, than "assault weapons." This does not mean that I accept your arbitrary, non documented numbers. Lastly, I will just mention, that what is most significant, is not the total number of incidents, but the total number of deaths, from those incidents. While there is no reason to think that a shooter couldn't kill as many with a semi-automatic that was not an assault weapon, the question remains open as to venues. That is, for the larger venues, at which are the potential for higher kill counts, people may be more likely to use assault weapons, which would make the kill total, for that weapon, proportionally higher, than the percentage of mass shootings, in which it is used. (Hopefully, you all can follow that logic).

I have only one other hope, for a possible saving from this impenetrable thicket of statistics, needing to be waded through:

HELP, @Statistikhengst ! Save me!

 

US, 2002
636 mass shootings, 660 deaths.
8 mass shootings involved semi-automatic rifles, with 54 deaths.
Sources: See my sig.

 

Of course, 2002 figures are not the least bit representational of today. The huge increase in people buying the AR-15s and such, came after this. So that is a very lame argument for you to make (and for anyone else to "like"). But if we take just the casualty count from 2002, it averaged 6.75 deaths, for each of those 8 attacks, which we are going to consider assault weapons. That would leave 606 deaths, from the other 628 mass shootings, which seems to indicate that trusting you for figures, is a dumb thing to do, since that would mean that the overwhelming majority of "mass shootings," had averaged less than 1 death, each. If it hasn't yet dawned on you: a single death, would not qualify as a " mass shooting," would it? I guess we can see why you had wanted someone else to do the counting.

But if we used the figures that you guys were throwing around earlier, that something like 22 to 25% of current mass shootings, use assault weapons, and we combine that with your purported figures here, that have about 7 times as many deaths in one of those incidents, as opposed to when a non assault weapon is used, then guess what? That would yield a majority of mass shooting deaths, still coming from assault weapons, even if they were only one-quarter or even one-fifth of the total number of events.

 

what do you think causes people to buy so many AR 15s. and no, unless you want to claim that semi auto handguns are assault weapons, most of the deaths (which is a minuscule number of the murders-california averages less than 5 deaths a year in "mass shootings" over the last 30 years) in mass shootings are still inflicted by those using HANDGUNS. and it's a big nothing burger. the attitude that something ought to be banned from lawful possession for lawful use, because a small minority of that thing are misused is mindless and fascist bullshit

 

Really? Would you feel the same, if we were discussing atomic bombs?

If not, it means that the real bullshit, is your charge. That is, we are not talking about a hard and fast principle, as you had expressed it: "the attitude that something ought to be banned from lawful possession for lawful use, because a small minority of that thing are misused is mindless and fascist bullshit."

Instead, it comes down to a judgement of the harmfulness of that minority, right? For some things, a minority misusing them would be plenty cause, in your mind, to ban something-- just not guns. But because it is your view, doesn't make it the defacto "reasonable" one; more reasonable than all others: the sublime view, against which the reasonableness of all other views are to be judged.

So save me your B.S. proclamations, which translate to nothing more than your saying, "whatever I think, defines what's right." Because it doesn't.

 

well when every municipal, local, state and federal civilian law enforcement agency issues atomic bombs then perhaps that idiotic analogy would be worth discussing

have you ever told us what firearms are protected from pimps in office by the second amendment? I haven't decided as to EVERYTHING that should be covered but if civilian police routinely use a type of firearm then it is clearly protected

 

Ridiculous "logic." You don't think there is any chance the reason the police are using a weapon, is because civilians are using it??

 

90% of the police in the USA are civilians and operating in a civilian environment

 

You think that answer means something? Did you lose the thread of the argument, you were making? You were saying that, if police standardly use some weapon, that means that civilians should be able to use it, too. Now I do not even accept the soundness of that argument; but in this case, it is definitely bogus, regardless, if the reason for an increased use of a particular arm, by police, is to counter a greater degree of civilian use.

So you would be saying that the he mere fact people had some weapon, should enshrine it as legal, forever (since cops will need to have them, as long as civilians do).
Duh.

 

no, what it means is that governments have decreed that such weapons are very suitable for civilian self defense in a civilian environment, and you labor under the delusion that banning honest people from having a weapon will somehow prevent those willing to fire upon police from getting the weapon. It is an estoppel argument
BTW have you ever told us what firearms are protected by the second amendment .

 

Have you "told us" which one(s) are not?

 

no, that's not the issue. I think all FIREARMS are protected but I am not going to spend an hour explaining what is a firearm. What I want you to explain is what firearms YOU believe are covered