After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Not in this case. To say that rifles are a favorite of mass shooters when twice as many handguns as rifles were used in the deadliest mass shootings from 1984 to 2017 is an incorrect statement.

 

Did you read the links that I attached?

 

I looked at a few of them, but could not find anything that takes away from the facts. Exactly what did you believe they contained?

 

Evidence and arguments that AR15s are a favorite of mass killers.

 

What evidence? I've reviewed the deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., and the AR-15 is mentioned several times. Handguns are mentioned lots and lots of times. Why do you suppose someone would say that they are a favorite with mass shooters when they've only been involved in a very small fraction of mass shootings? You do realize that it would be absolutely more accurate to say that handguns are a favorite among mass shooters since they are also the favorite weapon of mass shooters?

 

I wonder what has changed since I was a high schooler. I graduated in 86 before all this carnage got started but damned if I know what is different. Bullies existed back then, as well as the nerds and the popular kids. Guns certainly existed. Me and my buddy would leave our shotguns in the backseats of our cars while we were in school so when we got out we could go to my grandad's farm and hunt dove. Violence on TV? We had that too. Bad family life? Ditto. So what the hell is the root cause of this shit.

 

According to the National School Safety Center, since the 1992-1993 U.S. school year there has been a significant decline in school-associated violent deaths (deaths on private or public school property for kindergarten through grade 12 and resulting from schools functions or activities):

1992–1993 (44 Homicides and 55 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

1993–1994 (42 Homicides and 51 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

1994–1995 (17 Homicides and 20 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

1995–1996 (29 Homicides and 35 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

1996–1997 (23 Homicides and 25 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

1997–1998 (35 Homicides and 40 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

1998–1999 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)

1999–2000 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)

2000–2001 (19 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

2001–2002 (4 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

2002–2003 (14 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

2003–2004 (29 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

2004–2005 (20 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

2005–2006 (5 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

2006–2007 (38 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

2007–2008 (3 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

2008–2009 (10 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

2009–2010 (5 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

 

Have you read the articles? I've linked nine of them so far, with the titles:
Here's how the AR-15 became the weapon of choice for America's mass shooters — and why it's so deadly
With AR-15s, Mass Shooters Attack With the Rifle Firepower Typically Used by Infantry Troops
AR-15 Rifles Are Beloved, Reviled and a Common Element in Mass Shootings
The AR-15, the gun behind some of the worst mass shootings in America, explained
Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings
In Florida, an AR-15 Is Easier to Buy Than a Handgun
Here's What You Need To Know About The Weapons Of War Used In Mass Shootings | HuffPost
The AR-15 is the gun of choice for mass shootings and it’s easier to buy in Florida than a pistol
https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ecame-one-of-the-most-popular-guns-in-america
As a reasonable person might deduce from the titles, they explain why the AR-15 is a favorite weapon in mass shootings. The AR-15 has become a focus of attention because it was involved in several recent shootings, including Parkland, Florida; Las Vegas, Nevada; Sutherland Springs, Texas. The 20 children and six adults who died in Newtown were killed, in part, by a version of the AR-15, as were the 12 who died in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater (that killer had quite an arsenal, including handguns and assault rifles. So were the 14 who died in San Bernardino.
What you seem to be saying is that this is somehow misleading because handguns have been involved more often than AR-15s in mass shootings. That may be. I'm only telling you what I read in the articles. It might be that the handguns were more accessible to the shooters than the AR-15s. Or not. It might be that my articles or your information is fake news. I doubt that. Where exactly are you going with this? Do you think we should be concentrating our attention on regulating hand guns? Would that be a practical solution? Or is this another argument for doing nothing?

 

Going with this? I've only made a claim that in all of the deadliest mass shootings between 1984 and 2017, handguns were used twice as many times as rifles. I'm also making the point that any source that claims that AR-15s are a favored weapon of mass shooters without mentioning that handguns are the favored weapon of mass shooters is exposing an agenda. Don't you think?

 

Quite possibly. It's also possible that the NRA and its supporters have agendas too. It doesn't change the fact that AR-15s were used in recent killings and that they have design features that make them attractive to shooters interested in taking out lots of people. And so I return to the question: Do you think we should be concentrating our attention on regulating hand guns? Would that be a practical solution to the killings? Or is this another argument for doing nothing?

 

Not

Well…wow

Ok I asked you when you would start killing police officers - what would be the trigger for you to begin using your guns to murder other people - and you reply with this.

It’s a strange Yes and No answer

Yes - you give examples of what have triggered others to murder police officers and seem to admire their stand.

But

No – you say you wouldn’t have done that.

As Okie has explained these people were not ‘freedom fighters’ against a repressive ‘government’ and it would be incredibly naive and simplistic to think so.

Anyway these are events that have already happened so are you saying you are already radicalised and ready to shoot dead the first police officer that comes to your door or plotting to be the next Tim McVeigh, because it sounds very much like that, with a little bit of plausible deniability thrown in at the end when you realised just what you seem to be admitting to.

I mean you seem to be implying that you already think the ‘government’ is ‘bad’ that for you the finger is already on the trigger, squeezing it. It seems like you have already decided to act (kill people) you are just waiting for the ‘right’ opportunity to do so.

*

Also it doesn’t seem to be about bring about a better society, a dodgy cult, a murderous terrorist and some criminals isn’t exactly my idea of ‘heroes’ as you seem to want to paint them

So it makes me wonder if this is the mind-set of all the other gun lobbyists that say they own guns as a means to ‘resist’ the democratically elected government of the US, pumped up on right wing and NRA propaganda about liberal conspiracies so that they are ready to pop, its seems rather dangerous and unhealthy

As I say I hope the FBI is taking note.

 

Ok another ten pages and the same crap – it’s just goes around and around those advocating gun control present rational argument – the gun lobby repeat the same crap or some simplistic comment they’ve been taught by the NRA only to have it countered by more rational argument from the gun control people only to have the gun lobby shit out more crap …..and so on and so on.

America needs better education the type it has is clearly not working people need to be able to think for themselves and recognise the difference between what is propaganda and what is a rational position [I mean just look at farmerdon's rubbish above].

Guns are simply not the solution to deep seated social and economic problems and are in fact likely to exacerbate things and easy access to guns has not and does not make a society ‘safer’.

 

Tisk tisk

Trump’s administration is about to wage a jihad against video games.

I feel like I went to bed last night, and woke up in the ‘90s.

Video games don’t cause violence

 

Gun people often bring up Hitler and the Nazis as a definition of a ‘bad’ government that the ‘decent gun owners’ would defend America against.

But it has to be remembered that Hitler was popular in Germany, especially amongst certain groups, who thought he was preventing a ‘bad’ government controlled by left wingers.

Hitler was very happy to have his supporters being armed and the 1938 German Weapons Act passed during his rule actually loosened gun ownership rules and I think if my memory is correct removed them all together for Nazis party members

I mean think about it the other way – US gun owners say their guns are in part held to defend against a ‘bad’ government, but what is the definition of a ‘bad’ government, what is the demographics of gun ownership in the US, and I believe it’s mainly white, male and politically right wing and politically in the US who are the biggest defenders of gun rights, does it come from the right or left?

What do you think they would define as a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ government?

Think about the thousands of black people murdered by the KKK and other racists in the southern states of the US was that ‘tyranny’ was that ‘bad’ government – so why didn’t the ‘decent’ and ‘good’ white people of those areas protect the black people being abused, I mean they had access to guns.

It seems to me that it’s basically a well-armed right wing group threatening society with violence if it does things it doesn’t like – for instance bring in gun control, I mean as one person put it they would begin killing police officers

It does make one wonder if the gun lobby are the ones most likely to support ‘bad’ government if it fitted in with their viewpoint?

As I say I hope the FBI are taking note.

 

You bring up a GREAT example of the blacks and the KKK. If they were armed they could have stood a much better chance at resisting a tyrannical government.

And as so many seem to imply that Trump is a racist, out to get anyone not white. Should they be armed and ready to defend themselves? I would join them in thier resistance when Trump tells the white supremacists to go get em. They'd be fighting me as well as the Blacks, Latinos, and whomever else were being racially targeted by them.

 

Not

But the question is why didn’t the gun owners do it? Why didn’t the gun owners stop the racist laws being brought in the first place?

It comes down to trust should we trust the gun owners to do the protection

I’ve been told that

78% don’t own guns

19% own 50% of the guns

3% own the other 50% of guns

And it makes me wonder if the gun owners (especially that 3%) are ‘reliable, honest, moral and virtuous’?

I mean who are these people?

Well we know the demographic of gun ownership which is that it’s in the main white men who lean right politically.

I would also guess that the 3% are probably the most anti-gun control group and probably have the same views, outlook and arguments as the anti-gun control people on this site, and those people do not come across as the most rational, reasonable or even honest group I’ve ever meet.

So again I wonder if these people are the best ones to be the supposed protectors of American society.

You say you and the other gun owners here would have been on the side of the black people during segregation and would have gone up against the KKK

But it hard to say isn’t it, people say things I mean Trump says he would have run toward the sound of gunfire at Parkland even if he wasn’t armed.

 

Lol Not just the added pic in this post is propaganda. The whole post is. Nice try.

There's no chance all guns are gonna be banned or taken. Nobody here was arguing for it. You put it as such because you want to make the idea of better gun control (which includes weapons like the AR15 not being so easily available for the average citizen) look bad. Thanks for playing

 

ALREADY COVERED – it’s another irrational argument

The claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

The problem is many Germans already disliked Jews (a common viewpoint in many places) and Nazis propaganda had fanned that dislike and taught them that the Jews were dangerous.

So what if Jews had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as justified and come to their defence or just seem it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed locking away?

Think about US history, did the Native American that fought back, get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese descent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them, and what if they had shot at the police would they have got general popular support? What about these hauled in front of McCarthy, would people rallied to them if they had refused to go before such a witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

And what about the thousands of black people murdered by the KKK and other racists why didn’t the decent and good white people of those areas protect the black people being abused, they had access to guns, they had votes, they filled juries, they could have done a lot to stop what was happening, why didn’t they?

 

I have no idea where you get your stats. But believe what you desire.