Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

With all due respect, I doubt you hunt or shoot or know much about guns.

 

Semi-automatic firearms have been around for over a hundred years. The are not something new. The reason many hunters prefer semi-automatic rifles is because animals generally do not die instantly unless hit perfectly. Regardless of what the NRA might say, animals do not like being shot, and if you shoot them, and only injure them, they run away, and they often run very far. Animals often have to be shot more than once to be stopped. You do not want to chase the animal too far, and you don't want the animal getting away and taking days to bleed-out. 

 

Again, many people in the US use guns for hunting, plinking, target shooting, protection, collecting and whatever the owner sees fit to use them for. As long as what they are doing is legal, what business is it of of anyone else's why they want them and what they use them for?  Shooting and gun owning are activities people enjoy, whether or not they NEED guns is irrelevant. Most people in the US do not NEED a gun, but clearly some people do, and to believe otherwise is foolish. 

 

Most people that own guns  in the US do not belong to gun clubs, and many never go to public ranges. People that belong to clubs typically shoot and hunt in places other than the club they belong to. People that shoot at public rages often do not shoot at the same range all the time, and again, their shooting is often not limited to ranges. Also, after shooting, guns typically need to be serviced. Most people do this themselves, and do it at home.

 

Many people hunt and shoot on their own property and or on public land. It is really no different than fishing, except that it is more difficult to kill someone with fishing gear. Imagine garroting people gets popular, and it turns out spetra/braid was really effective for garroting, so much so that it became the weapon of choice. The government steps in and bans braid, and says you can only use monofilament. Do you think that banning spectra would have any significant effect on the problem?

 

People in the US have the right to own firearms and to keep them in their homes. There is a vehicle in place to repeal this right. Let the people that want to remove this right gather the support they need and go through the process of repealing  it. 

 

Most proposed run control will do little or nothing to slow, much less stop gun violence. What it will do is make it disproportionally difficult for the poor to own guns, while doing nothing to restrict the rich from having guns. Most people posting in this thread seem to applaud this, I do not. I think the poor have just as much right to own a gun as the rich.

"...animals do not like being shot, and if you shoot them, and only injure them, they run away, and they often run very far. Animals often have to be shot more than once to be stopped. You do not want to chase the animal too far, and you don't want the animal getting away and taking days to bleed-out. "

 

So use a bolt action rifle.  They are rugged, reliable, accurate, easy to maintain, and cheaper than semi-automatics. 

 

However if you must use a semi-automatic, a magazine with five or fewer rounds should be more than sufficient.

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Actually it does. All the really smart people think that if you stop selling assault rifles, which represent only a small percentage of gun deaths, it it will significantly reduce the number of gun deaths.

 

All the really stupid people, do not understand how stopping the sale of assault rifles, which only represent a small percentage of gun deaths, will significantly reduce gun deaths. 

 

To make matters worse, all the really smart people are calling the really stupid people names, and refusing to explain to the really stupid people, how stopping the sale of assault rifles, which again, only represent a small percentage of gun deaths, is going to significantly reduce the number of guns deaths.

 

If only the really smart people would explain to the really stupid people how banning the sale of assault rifles will significantly reduce the number of gun deaths, when assault rifles only represent a small percentage of gun deaths, the really stupid people would understand, and everyone would be in agreement.

 

But, here we are...

Banning assault rifles will not significantly reduce the overall number of gun deaths, but it will make some mass shooting less deadly, and make the police response safer and easier.  Plus assault rifles serve no purpose that can not be better fulfilled with safer, cheaper guns.  That is reason enough to ban them.

 

Remember this thread is about a mass shooter using a high capacity 'pistol' (actually a modified AR-15), and one of the people he killed was a police officer trying to stop him.

Edited March 29, 2021 by heybruce

[pacovl46]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Stop with your rectum fixation.  I contrasted the ease of hiding drugs with the difficulty of hiding guns.  That's it.  Find something else to fixate on.

 

You did not provide a link to the source of your claim about 43% of guns sourced on the black market.  I have my doubts about your claim that it said changing existing gun laws would not reduce gun crimes.

 

Edit:  I found your survey.   https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

 

It states:

 

"An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). "

 

"off the street" would be the kind of person to person cash sell I described earlier.  Unless the seller knows the gun is stolen or the buyer isn't legally allowed to own a gun or will use the gun to commit a crime the seller can not be convicted of a crime.

 

Also, even in the case of stolen guns, most if not all of those guns started out as legal weapons and then were stolen, usually because of lax storage by legal gun owners.

 

Where does this article state that changing gun laws will not reduce gun crime?

 

BTW:  The guns owned by a little less than 300,000 prisoners would represent a very small percentage of guns in the US. 

You’re the phone fixated on the ridiculous idea that all drugs are smuggled into the country via rectums, not me. Yeah, drugs are easier to hide than guns as long as you’re talking small scale amounts, try hiding a 1 kilo brick of cocaine. Also, since guns are so hard to hide none of the gangsters own any! ????

 

Have you actually read the article because it seems you haven’t and instead you just cherry picked. The last sentence of the third paragraph from the top explicitly states that stricter or additional gun laws will not reduce gun crimes! 
 

“The majority of firearms used in criminal activity are obtained illegally,” said David Chianese, a correspondent at Law Enforcement Today, published author and former NYPD detective. “Stricter or additional gun laws do not reduce gun violence.”

 

I also love how you focus on the ‘off the street’ part and leave out the ‘underground market’ part of which ‘off the street’ is a part of, that’s why they listed them together as 43%, which by no means can be classified as small. 43% is almost half. Therefore the black market in the US is a lot larger than you think, as I’ve told you. 
 

It doesn’t matter how large the percentage of guns is that have been owned by prisoners in comparison to the guns owned in total in the US! It’s about how many of the guns used in crimes have been obtained illegally and that is the majority of them. Stated clearly also in the third paragraph of the article, first line! Again, read the article in its entirety! 
 

Yes, I did not provide a link to the survey, instead I’ve copied and pasted the whole thing. I fail to see how this is a problem! It’s easy enough to find online, so me tinkering with it to suit my point of view would be just stupid! 

Edited March 29, 2021 by pacovl46

[heybruce]

39 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

You’re the phone fixated on the ridiculous idea that all drugs are smuggled into the country via rectums, not me. Yeah, drugs are easier to hide than guns as long as you’re talking small scale amounts, try hiding a 1 kilo brick of cocaine. Also, since guns are so hard to hide none of the gangsters own any! ????

 

Have you actually read the article because it seems you haven’t and instead you just cherry picked. The last sentence of the third paragraph from the top explicitly states that stricter or additional gun laws will not reduce gun crimes! 
 

“The majority of firearms used in criminal activity are obtained illegally,” said David Chianese, a correspondent at Law Enforcement Today, published author and former NYPD detective. “Stricter or additional gun laws do not reduce gun violence.”

 

I also love how you focus on the ‘off the street’ part and leave out the ‘underground market’ part of which ‘off the street’ is a part of, that’s why they listed them together as 43%, which by no means can be classified as small. 43% is almost half. Therefore the black market in the US is a lot larger than you think, as I’ve told you. 
 

It doesn’t matter how large the percentage of guns is that have been owned by prisoners in comparison to the guns owned in total in the US! It’s about how many of the guns used in crimes have been obtained illegally and that is the majority of them. Stated clearly also in the third paragraph of the article, first line! Again, read the article in its entirety! 
 

Yes, I did not provide a link to the survey, instead I’ve copied and pasted the whole thing. I fail to see how this is a problem! It’s easy enough to find online, so me tinkering with it to suit my point of view would be just stupid! 

No, still not there.  Why don't you do a cut and paste of the paragraph on the DoJ survey you referenced:   https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

 

The whole survey is 20 pages.  Thankfully you didn't copy and paste the whole thing.  FYI, you should only copy a few pertinent sentences in your posts and provide a link to the source.

 

If you are quoting one man's opinion stated in some other publication, you will have to post a link to it.

[Phulublub]

4 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

It’s about how many of the guns used in crimes have been obtained illegally and that is the majority of them

Yes, but....

 

If there were not huge numbers of guns held legally that could be transferred illegally, either by incorrect transfer or theft, then there would be fewer guns in circulation in total.  So to state baldly that the majority have been obtained illegally is a bit of a red herring.  Remove much of the opportunity to obtain guns illegally.

 

PH

 

[joecoolfrog]

On 3/23/2021 at 7:25 PM, heybruce said:

I don't think you read my post correctly.

Your post was quoted in error , I know we are both of a similar mind in this respect.

[stevenl]

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

<snip>

 

I understand, you guys don't like guns or hunting, and you seem to hate the people that do. 

I can't speak for others, don't know who you mean with 'you guys', but me, no I don't like guns or hunting. But hating people that do, also no. 'If people oppose certain opinions they must hate the people who have those opinions' is what you're stating. There is no reason at all to think that way.

[Mr Derek]

 

22 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

It has little to do with the animal hurting too much. If you have been following along, you should know that I was responding to someone that asked why a hunter would want a semi-automatic. I explained that if the animal is not killed instantly, the hunter has to chase the animal down. The hunter does not want to case the animal down, and when the hunter does chase the animal down, the hunter has to drag the animal back. Dragging a 100-300 dear through the woods is not pleasant, particularly as they generally run down hill, and it seems like always away from the camp and or truck. 

 

I understand, you guys don't like guns or hunting, and you seem to hate the people that do. 

 

I think the implication was that hunting animals for sport is primitive and unnecessary anyway. Moreoever, hunting with a rifle is hardly hunting so much as cowardice and laziness - no achievement at all to plug an animal with a gun from a distance, like hook-a-duck.

Do it naked with a hand-made spear and I'll show you more respect.

 

Anyway, why are we talking about hunting? The existence of guns in society on such a scale only indicates structural failures in society itself. America was always a social experiment that was never going to work healthily in the long term.  The reason for all the guns in the US is blindingly obvious but we have to pretend to be blind to it. Compare Canada and US, which have vastly different gun-ownership and crime rates, and have roughly comparable demographic constituency... except for one thing.

 

There's also the possibility that, by now, Americans have grown to like living in such an edgy place which gives quite a lot of meaning to life, as opposed to living in Blandsville. The place is a lost cause.

[Yellowtail]

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

I can't speak for others, don't know who you mean with 'you guys', but me, no I don't like guns or hunting. But hating people that do, also no. 'If people oppose certain opinions they must hate the people who have those opinions' is what you're stating. There is no reason at all to think that way.

 

If you don't hate, or to be more clear, not like the people that enjoy guns and hunting, why do you support punishing them? 

 

I don't smoke. Second hand smoke kills more people every year, but I don't support huge taxes on cigarettes or petition the government to make people stop.  

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

If you don't hate, or to be more clear, not like the people that enjoy guns and hunting, why do you support punishing them? 

 

I don't smoke. Second hand smoke kills more people every year, but I don't support huge taxes on cigarettes or petition the government to make people stop.  

Where am I supporting punishing them? I am supporting a safe environment, and guns play no part in a safe environment. I don't smoke either, but do support measures to keep smoke away from other people.

[Yellowtail]

43 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

 

 

I think the implication was that hunting animals for sport is primitive and unnecessary anyway. Moreoever, hunting with a rifle is hardly hunting so much as cowardice and laziness - no achievement at all to plug an animal with a gun from a distance, like hook-a-duck.

Do it naked with a hand-made spear and I'll show you more respect.

 

Anyway, why are we talking about hunting? The existence of guns in society on such a scale only indicates structural failures in society itself. America was always a social experiment that was never going to work healthily in the long term.  The reason for all the guns in the US is blindingly obvious but we have to pretend to be blind to it. Compare Canada and US, which have vastly different gun-ownership and crime rates, and have roughly comparable demographic constituency... except for one thing.

 

There's also the possibility that, by now, Americans have grown to like living in such an edgy place which gives quite a lot of meaning to life, as opposed to living in Blandsville. The place is a lost cause.

 

Clearly you know nothing about guns or hunting eh.

 

In any event, the gun ownership rate in Canada is about a 28% that of the US  year gun apparently gun deaths are about a 16%. 

 

If the problem were the number of guns, would the number of gun deaths compared to the gun ownership rates match more closely?

 

Of course you wouldn't, because the data do not support your argument. 

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Where am I supporting punishing them? I am supporting a safe environment, and guns play no part in a safe environment. I don't smoke either, but do support measures to keep smoke away from other people.

 

You want to take away there guns and make them pay more for them. How is that not being punished? 

 

In much the same way that high taxes on cigarettes punishes smokers. 

 

 

[pacovl46]

15 hours ago, Phulublub said:

Yes, but....

 

If there were not huge numbers of guns held legally that could be transferred illegally, either by incorrect transfer or theft, then there would be fewer guns in circulation in total.  So to state baldly that the majority have been obtained illegally is a bit of a red herring.  Remove much of the opportunity to obtain guns illegally.

 

PH

 

Yes, but if you were to remove those then the black market would expand to satisfy the demand.

[jak2002003]

8 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Yes, but if you were to remove those then the black market would expand to satisfy the demand.

Well the police and laws need to be tougher to clamp down on it and get the illegal guns destroyed..  How did it work in all the other countries that banned guns?

[pacovl46]

19 hours ago, heybruce said:

No, still not there.  Why don't you do a cut and paste of the paragraph on the DoJ survey you referenced:   https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

 

The whole survey is 20 pages.  Thankfully you didn't copy and paste the whole thing.  FYI, you should only copy a few pertinent sentences in your posts and provide a link to the source.

 

If you are quoting one man's opinion stated in some other publication, you will have to post a link to it.

I’ve copied and pasted the entire article two days ago! All you have to do is go through your notifications here and find it!

[pacovl46]

3 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Well the police and laws need to be tougher to clamp down on it and get the illegal guns destroyed..  How did it work in all the other countries that banned guns?

They never had a gun culture like the US to begin with and most of these countries are a lot smaller and therefore easier to control, and in all those countries illegal guns are present and used. It’s like drugs, just because you make them illegal doesn’t mean they will disappear!

[Surelynot]

8 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

How did it work in all the other countries that banned guns?

Read up on Japan....1/3 the population of the US, but gun crime, gun deaths are a fraction.....why? You get 10 years.....end of.

 

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/japan.php

Edited March 30, 2021 by Surelynot

[Ventenio]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Read up on Japan....1/3 the population of the US, but gun crime, gun deaths are a fraction.....why? You get 10 years.....end of.

 

Pro's and Con's.... 

 

Japan.....  ok, no guns.  massive criminal activity, corruption, lack of freedoms, 99.9% conviction rate... 

 

I'm not even saying Japan is bad, I'm sure it's fine for most people.

 

but not people who feel they have a right to own a gun.

 

maybe ban motorbikes if people are dying, or cigarettes, or alcohol..

 

but some people like to have the freedom to use those things.  

[Surelynot]

Japan.....  ok, no guns.  massive criminal activity, corruption, 

 

Unlike in America you mean?

 

but not people who feel they have a right to own a gun.

 

Who feel they have a right.....spot on! 

 

maybe ban motorbikes if people are dying, or cigarettes, or alcohol..

 

The 'not as bad as Hitler' defense...poor......motorbikes, cigarettes, alcohol.....people killing themselves.

 

but some people like to have the freedom to use those things........and they already do.....so not an issue.  

[Eric Loh]

27 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

They never had a gun culture like the US to begin with and most of these countries are a lot smaller and therefore easier to control, and in all those countries illegal guns are present and used. It’s like drugs, just because you make them illegal doesn’t mean they will disappear!

India has more than 4 times population than US and has a long history of gun culture. They even have a NRA type organisation. Yet mass shooting is rare and only 10% homicides involved guns. Your argument simply does not hold water. 
https://www.news18.com/news/immersive/guntantra-guns-in-india.html

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

India has more than 4 times population than US and has a long history of gun culture. They even have a NRA type organisation. Yet mass shooting is rare and only 10% homicides involved guns. Your argument simply does not hold water. 
https://www.news18.com/news/immersive/guntantra-guns-in-india.html

I guess the upshot (pun) of all these discussions is that Americans (for whatever reason) simply cannot be trusted to have, own, carry guns.....

[jak2002003]

1 hour ago, pacovl46 said:

They never had a gun culture like the US to begin with and most of these countries are a lot smaller and therefore easier to control, and in all those countries illegal guns are present and used. It’s like drugs, just because you make them illegal doesn’t mean they will disappear!

Of course they dont disappear. 

 

But something needs to be done to stop them from being so widely available. 

 

Some people always to illegal or harmful things that are bad for society. Are you saying that as we can't stop these things 100 percent that we should just sir back and give up? 

[pacovl46]

37 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

India has more than 4 times population than US and has a long history of gun culture. They even have a NRA type organisation. Yet mass shooting is rare and only 10% homicides involved guns. Your argument simply does not hold water. 
https://www.news18.com/news/immersive/guntantra-guns-in-india.html

Which part of "most" countries is it you didn't get? I didn't say all countries! Also, the situation in each country is unique, you cannot apply the same logic across the board to all other countries especially when it comes to mass shootings. Plus, it's not like India doesn't have any murders! 

 

Americans always have had guns ever since they've settled on that continent and they have had the official right to bear arms for almost 2.5 centuries. Can you say the same about India? Guess not!

[Thomas J]

On 3/28/2021 at 5:07 PM, pacovl46 said:

I hate to break this to you, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about! Death penalty does not deter crimes that’s a fact, otherwise you wouldn’t have any capital crimes in countries that do have the death penalty.

I hate to break it to you but that is absolutely convoluted "logic"  

1. The USA really has a death penalty in name only.  The Supreme Court in and the court affirmed the legality of capital punishment in the 1976 case Gregg v. Georgia. Since then, more than 7,800 defendants have been sentenced to death;[16] of these, more than 1,500 have been executed.[17][18] A total of at least 185 people who were sentenced to death since 1972 have since been exonerated.[19][20] As of December 16, 2020, 2,591 convicts are still on death row.[21][22]

Do the math.  The USA has approximately 19,000 homicides each year.  That would translate to approximately 836,000 murders over the 44 years.  But only 7,800 were sentenced to death and only 1,500 were actually executed.  Deterrent? Why? In the USA if you kill someone you have approximately a 33% chance of never being caught.  Then if you are caught less than a 1% chance of being sentenced to death and then if sentenced to death only 19% chance you will ever be executed. And even if you are executed you will spend on average decades on death row while millions are spent by government paid attorneys to overturn your conviction. Again do the math.  7,800 sentenced to death, 1,500 executed and  2,591 still on death row.  That means far more people died from natural causes while in prison than were executed.  Nope that sort of death penalty is no deterrent. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Since then%2C more than 7%2C800,are still on death row.

To be an effective "deterrent" and deterrent does not mean as your portray 100%. It is shown that crimes are deterred when the criminal perceives they have 1. a high probability of being caught 2. That the punishment for the crime is severe and 3. that the punishment is carried out quickly. 

None of those are true in the USA.  Only 62% of murders have anyone charged, fewer than that are convicted and less than 1% sentenced and less than 2/100 of 1% actually executed.  Pretty good odds.  



 National Vital Statistics System – Mortality Data (2019) via CDC WONDER 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Thomas J

[Surelynot]

11 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

1. a high probability of being caught 2. That the punishment for the crime is severe

Read an article on this....very interesting....it was applied to illegal parking

 

Chance of being caught 100%....fine can be minimal.....people will be deterred 

Chances of being caught 0%.......... you could have capital punishment ......people not deterred .

 

.....but the key element is not the chance of being caught, rather, what people perceive the chances are of being caught. 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Surelynot

[Thomas J]

15 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

what people perceive the chances are of being caught. 

Yes I agree with that.  Perception is reality.  That is why in the Old West people convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death were hung in the public square.  They wanted the "perception" to be that the punishment was severe and immediate.  Again, one way or another unless you change the perception in the mind of the criminal that they will be caught and 2. that they will get sentenced to death and 3. that the death will take place in weeks not decades, saying that the death penalty has been proven not to be a deterrent is an hollow statement.  

How can you say something does not work when it is extremely rare that it is ever tried which creates the perception that it will never be imposed. 

 

[mogandave]

19 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Read an article on this....very interesting....it was applied to illegal parking

 

Chance of being caught 100%....fine can be minimal.....people will be deterred 

Chances of being caught 0%.......... you could have capital punishment ......people not deterred .

 

.....but the key element is not the chance of being caught, rather, what people perceive the chances are of being caught. 

 

Yet we are advocating passing regulations that only apply to law-abiding citizens and largely ignore criminal activities.

 

This makes perfect sense. We can’t enforce the laws we have, so we make more laws. It’s brilliant.

 

We seem to be doing the opposite with drugs. We can’t enforce drug laws, and we have too much drug crime, so to reduce drug crime we make drugs legal. Fewer drug laws, fewer drug crimes. Again it’s brilliant!

 

 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

I’ve copied and pasted the entire article two days ago! All you have to do is go through your notifications here and find it!

You did not copy and paste the 21 page DoJ article.  I suspect you copied and pasted an opinion piece from a far less credible publication.  However since you did not provide a source for your copy and paste I can not verify that.

 

If you want your posts to be credible, post links to the source.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

Yet we are advocating passing regulations that only apply to law-abiding citizens and largely ignore criminal activities.

 

This makes perfect sense. We can’t enforce the laws we have, so we make more laws. It’s brilliant.

 

We seem to be doing the opposite with drugs. We can’t enforce drug laws, and we have too much drug crime, so to reduce drug crime we make drugs legal. Fewer drug laws, fewer drug crimes. Again it’s brilliant!

 

Yes, laws must be enforced to be effective.

 

Here's a suggestion; require all guns be registered to guns owners.  If police find a gun used in a crime, it can be traced to its last registered owner.  If that owner can't show that the gun was stolen and he filed a police report on the theft, hold the owner responsible for the crime.

 

If nothing else, this would motivate gun owners to assume responsibility for their property and cut down on the number of stolen guns in circulation.  It would also cut down on anonymous cash sales without any checks on the purchaser.

 

Of course enforcement of the registration laws and prosecution of gun owners who 'lose track' of their weapons must be rigorous.

[Thomas J]

Despite the futility in attempting reasoned debate on the gun control issue, to those so preconceived with gun hatred, I will make one final attempt.

It is obvious based on numerous comments from various people that they know precious little about current firearms laws and even less about firearms.  You will notice there is never any factual documentation presented by them showing that firearm restriction laws have any effect on reducing homicides or mass murders.  Why, because there is no such evidence. At best the available evidence is contradictory with states with the most lax gun laws and highest gun ownership having the least crime.

They point to countries like Japan as having a near zero rate of gun homicides but ignore countries like Switzerland with a high rate of gun ownership yet a near zero rate of gun homicides.  They ignore that countries like Mexico, and Venezuela where guns to private citizens are extremely restricted yet they have high murder rates.  They say oh those are lawless countries.  Yet when pointed out that Alaska, Arkansas Wyoming, West Virginia and Idaho have rates of gun household ownership 5 to 6 times greater than New York, but they don’t have a gun homicide problem. The problem is with the people residing predominately in large urban areas and most often associated with drugs or other criminal activity. 

They have no understanding of the difference between a semi-automatic and automatic firearms and still believe automatic firearms are available to the public They portray the villain as the evil AR-15 and suggest it is a powerful weapon capable of penetrating building walls, when in fact the AR-15 is amongst the least powerful cartridges made.  They seem to believe it is a machine gun when it fact it is a semi-automatic copy of the M16 (fully automatic) rifle introduced in the U.S. military during the Vietnam war.  Even the soldiers using the M-16 hated it and dubbed it the Mattel 16 (Mattel toys) because of in part its lack of lethality.  See attached pictures for size of cartridges and the size of the animals it is suited for.  The .556 Nato or .223 Remington cartridge used in the AR-15 is said to be suitable for small varmits and predators.  The fact that banning it might only change the mass shooters “choice” of weapon to a larger and more lethal caliber seems to escape them.

There is an obvious lack of knowledge on gun laws.  Many have called for banning automatic firearms even though they have been banned for decades.  They call for universal background checks, even though they are already currently required.  Yes, private sales are excluded, and that “loophole” can be closed.  With that said, none of the mass shooters purchased from a gun show and the background check law intended to stop those who should not have a firearm in 2018  did nothing  

...
Those who hate guns proclaim that over 100 people a day from the USA die each day from firearms in an attempt to portray the scene as bodies in the street.  They don’t disclose that in 2018 there were 211 who died in mass shootings. That number does not serve the image they wish to portray They conveniently and deliberately or perhaps unknowingly do not tell the full story in that 62% of those are suicide, 3% are justifiable homicide and of the remaining 35% the overwhelming majority are done with a handgun but somehow it is banning the evil AR-15 that will solve all of the gun violence.  They also conveniently ignore that an “estimated 42% of all homicides are drug/gang related. They also conveniently omit the thousands of times each year victims lives are saved or injury prevented by a lawful owner of a firearm stopping a criminal 
 

 

  While they call for stricter background checks for U.S. citizens, many of the same people want no background checks for people entering the country illegally some of which have criminal backgrounds and some of which will serve as conduits for drug distribution here in the USA. Many gun control proponents also object to gun control measures such as stop and frisk that actually have been shown to reduce crime and gun violence. 


he FBI further breaks down gun homicides by weapon type. Handguns have been consistently responsible for the majority of fatalities.

·       In 2016, there were 11,004 gun homicides (65% handguns, 6% rifle/shotgun, 30% other/unknown type)^[76]

·       In 2014, there were 8,124 gun homicides (68% handguns, 6% rifle/shotgun, 25% other/unknown type).^[77]

·    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides

 

 

The fact that knives, hammers, other blunt objects, fists and feet are actually the instruments of homicides  more often than rifles or shotguns, that to them is irrelevant.  A knife is used 3 times more than a rifle. But their real goal is at least the banning of the evil semi-automatic rifle not the saving of lives that is paramount in their mind.  You see comments that certain firearms have no legitimate hunting purpose or that guns are only meant to kill.  Since knives are used 3 times more often than rifles then why isn’t there a demand to restrict the ownership of Combat Knives.  They certainly were never intended to cut your steak with. (see combat knife)

You might note that I have made numerous posts during some of which I asked OK what law would you propose and how would that have stopped any of the mass shootings.  Only one person was honest enough to reply with “ban all guns”.  The remaining just continued to beat the mantra of banning certain firearms, more extensive background checks, and even one person ludicrously responding more gun instruction.  

Now I am for and I believe the overwhelming majority of law abiding gun owners would favor any and all legislation that would truly stop firearms from falling into the hands of those who would misuse them. 

We have laws against illegal drugs, illegal migrants, illegal counterfeit goods, and we can not stop them from entering the country.  Heck we have people surrounded by prison guards enclosed in prison cells and yet drugs and weapons come in.  But somehow banning certain rifles will be different this time. 

The truth is those advocating gun laws stand on the soap box of “saving lives”.  The truth is that they merely have a personal distaste for guns, don’t own them, see no need for them and therefore believe they should be banned or extremely regulated.  I say this because if “savings lives’ were their real motivation they would not start with firearms.  They would not choose to attempt to save the 211 victims of mass shootings, they would pick something like stiffer punishments for alcohol related traffic accidents or the 70,000 who die each year from drug overdoses.  If your intent is really to save lives you would pick an area that would save the most lives as the number 1 priority not something that even if effective saves 211 lives versus 70,000. 

No they are not interested in savings lives they are todays ‘equivalent to the temperance movement of the 1920’s that led to alcohol prohibition.  It was pedaled to the public as the “noble experiment” undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. Prohibition proponents   believed that less alcohol consumption would decrease the amount of crime, spousal abuse, and raise the overall amount of piety in America.

So identical to those who hated alcohol, saw only the evil in it and banned it just because they hated it ,  Today’s gun control advocates despite having  no data to support their positions, and little chance for it to truly be enforceable, they don’t care, just because “they don’t like guns”

 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by onthedarkside
graphics with no weblink to source removed / quotes shortened for fair use