You are the only one to criticize people based on age, sex, or race. You did all 3 at once.

I appreciate the clarification. I am interested in the subject as well, but I don't see the issue in as black and white terms as it seems many do. Why do you think it is that some gun owners seem to fear the government coming and taking them away? Or that any law regulating or restricting firearms will inevitably lead to that outcome? I have some ideas, but they all suggest that the issue really isn't about guns, and more about distrust of government.

I did not criticize anyone based on those factors. You and your friend are the only ones making personal attacks. But as an aside, if your views are informed by being a minority I will send you a card. Send address.

"Defender of persecuted white people" fits the profile quite well.

2 reasons. Some are just nut cases, not dangerious types but the type that think everyone is out to get them. The other is many people actually want to take all guns away. No matter your opinion people are very passionate about it when it comes to guns.

Like I posted before. I believe we have enough laws now. They just need to be enforced.

The only one I would not have a problem with is required gun courses for everyone to own a gun. We actually have something like that here but it is for people under 18 so they can hunt. I live in an area that almost everyone owns a gun and many hunt. So everyone is taught to respect them. The only mass killing here was done with a sword.

I'm not asking this to cast doubt on your statement, but could you direct me to where I could find out about some of these people? This isn't something that I've encountered.

I would support a mandatory course like that. It seems to me that some of these school shooters only know about guns through video games where you shoot people, and have no idea of the "respect" that you mention. (Which I agree is important.) They might even think of the whole thing as a game, even as they have the gun in hand.

I am very against teachers having guns for any reason. So much so that if one is caught with one in school they need to be instantly fired and banned from ever teaching again.

I do not have kids so have no idea about our local graded schools. I do know our middle and high schools have one armed officer at each one. They actually do a lot of good in many different areas.

Pointing out the fact that the shooter's ammo wasn't as powerful as other ammo is not "demeaning" it. Or being insensitive. It is an attempt to bring factual information into this conversation.

Laws that govern people and protect their rights in society should be based in truth and logic, not simply emotion. Therefore, worthwhile discussions on the topic should likewise be based in truth, facts, and logic.

Why do you recoil (bad pun) from comments pointing out the shooter used comparatively low-power rounds? It's simply fact. In an honest discussion, facts like that are relevant.

I'll have to go back and read through, as I don't recall anyone commenting here that they want to "take all guns away". But it's not like I have anything else to do for the next few hours 🙃

I'm curious to know why you are so opposed to teachers having guns.

There are so many reasons in my honest opinion. I could list them for a very long time. I am not typing that much. I am all for a trained profesional with a gun in schools like we have here.

I wouldn't waste the time of going back and reading more. Most of it is beyond silly.

Saying “223s are baby ammo for rifles. If they are choosing them for their damage they are complete morons at best when it is one of the weakest rounds” isn’t comforting to parents who have lost kids. Perhaps the hunters here don’t realize it but these rounds have been effective at killing children.
Maybe they unsurprisingly weigh less than most deer you shoot. Either way, show a modicum of respect. No one is talking about banning ammo or even guns for that matter as far as I can tell. It would be nice if if we could make it slightly harder for someone to buy one of these weapons and use it a day or two later to kill children.

I have repeatedly said the worst outcome would be a law abiding citizen is held defenseless against someone with a gun that wants to do bad things. They don’t want to hear that. They hear hear, hey how can we balance rights but maybe prevent some deaths as you want to take my guns away so I hate you.

What is wrong with you?

Same question to you.

Yes, you did.

And yes, you have made personal attacks. In actual fact, you joined the debate (after flip flopping from your first post) solely, as part of your bizarre cross-thread weirdness and little shots, to comment that you too think I am stupid. Which is fine, I lay no claim to intellect. But once again you are simply factually wrong. What else is new?

Good evidence.

Race has nothing to do with this debate. There is nothing wrong with me for knowing this. You just like to screech and troll.

Because I don’t agree with you I am a screech and troll. I wish I knew how debates worked so I could cite your fallacies. Oh wait, I do. Not enough characters allowed in this post though.

No, you and only you appear to be a troll because that's what you came here to do, as the timeline posted earlier makes clear. You flipped your position only after you chose to extend your bizarre personal obsession into this.

PWCC is still a fraud ring.

I appreciate that you don’t take this issue seriously. Sigh.

Well no, you're trolling and obsession isn't a very important issue.

Don’t agree with me equals troll. You might be overusing that word.

Maybe one day you will learn to read. We can only hope.

You are looking at the issue emotionally. Some of us are being reasoned.

It is a tragedy when kids die, no matter how it happens. We all agree. You do not claim higher moral ground than anyone else in this thread, pretending someone else is insensitive because they make a factual statement regarding the weapon used.

A Swiss army knife is less powerful than a 12 inch meat cleaver or machete. Can we agree on that? The rounds fired from an AR-15 are likewise less potent than many other firearms out there. Just plain fact. But, since that fact upsets your anti AR-15 narrative, here's your opportunity to call ME insensitive (or whatever else your sidestep will be this time.)

What ammo isn’t going to kill or seriously a kid? What point are you or anyone else on “your side” trying to make?

1) Climb on pile of bodies to make political point while ignoring any other murders.

2) When faced with demands for a factual basis to your emotional appeals, make a claim to fact you pulled out of your ass or from your favorite left-wing op-ed.

3) Pretend it's true even though it isn't.

4) When 3 becomes untenable, insist it doesn't matter, and go back to 1.

5) When the loop between 4-1 becomes untenable, start screeching about race or abortions.

6) Repeat and restart the process the next day.

Actually so good. We are screwed.

Because that is how the money has been couching the argument for decades. "Be able to keep the tyranny at bay, while having fun at the range in the mean time. It is not only your Right, it is your Duty." And then marketing "Get 'em while they last! They're coming for you and yours!"

It is all about keeping the money rolling in and ZERO to do with Constitutional faithfulness to the 2nd amendment.

The "AR" debate has been skewed a bit with semantics. It is not an "assault rifle", it is a "low-powered" rifle. But the problem arises with it's marketing (official and otherwise) of being smaller, cheaper, lightweight, easier to use, and able to inflict serious damage to would be wrongdoers (or even deer).

There is a reason that it is a very popular firearm for enthusiasts and mass shooters alike. For the mass shooters, I don't know whether it is because it is ubiquitous, or the best bang for the buck.

I don't think that damage or lack of damage has much to do with that being their choice.

I think that choice is more often about the "image" the weapon presents.
In the graphic I posted, the bottom gun is in nearly every way functionally identical to the AR-15 in the center. But to some it looks more old fashioned than "cool" or "tactical". It's also marketed as a "ranch gun" a term I've never heard of before now. It also happens to be at least 600 cheaper than an AR-15 type from Daniel Defense.

That was one of my points about who buys them and why.
To use an example from a different field, I'd love to get one of the current performance cars from Dodge. But if it was performance, I'd get more for my money with a Tesla. Would I probably speed a bit in both? Well, yeah. Pretty much everyone does around here. Would I be more likely to get a ticket driving a bright green charger than a silver Tesla? Also yes.
Would the typical Charger owner be more likely to be caught doing burnouts somehwere? Yes. (My opinion, as is the opinion that burnouts a stupid and display nothing but how poorly your suspension is set up. )

Would someone troubled and potentially violent prefer the AR over the Ruger? Of course. (Not all AR buyers of course, as it includes options for accessories that have genuine real world function)

That top one? That's an M1 Garand, used extensively by the US military in WWII. 30-06, and very powerful. My friend says that with a bit of fairly expensive work it can be an excellent target shooting rifle. Still competetive after 80 years. And although limited still available through the civilian marksmanship program run by the government. (fairly strict qualifying requirements though so buying one elsewhere may be cheaper)
It's also good for hunting.
If it's damage you're looking for, it's a far better choice. But again, old fashioned looks, so the crazy people won't go that route.

(and all that from a non-gun owner who has friends that target shoot and hunt)

I think a bigger and deeper problem is societal. *any use of you're or similar words are in the generic sense, not specifically you.
An overall impatience.
An absolute insistence that "I'm right"
A very self centered approach to solving a problem. Protest in a way that not only is a nuisance to the person whose actions you're* protesting, but to innocent people who may agree with your* protest.
An insistence that people don't disrespect someone. Again a self centered approach that respect must be given for merely existing rather than earned.
People on both sides of any political debate/argument dehumanize the "other side" through name calling etc.
Lack of if not outright disdain for personal responsibility.

All of that seems to make some people think violence is the quick fix for their grievances.
Why they ever think kids are the ones to go after for that is way beyond me.

And as supporting info, a complaint against Daniel Defense has been filed over their advertising imagery.

All reasonable and fair points, Steve. It's the bolded part that I keep coming back to. I remember a time not too long ago when I could go into a bar anywhere in the country and have a reasonable and respectful conversation with people whose views on things sometimes could not be further opposed to mine. These days, people ask "which side you're on" as if we are at war with our neighbors and compatriots.

I have rarely if ever have seen that in my 53 years and that includes when talking to most friends.

Perhaps my experience is unusual, but I take an interest in listening to people whose views are likely to challenge my own. This might explain why I'm still on this thread after being told I want elementary kids to die because I wouldn't immediately agree with someone's ideas about school safety policies :rolleyes:

LOL, not sure why any of us keep posting in this thread.:)

I have seen a few posts in which you have extended a fallacy that AR-15 type designed rifles are the choice of mass shooters or "ubiquitous" as just said now.

This is in no way true and I am sure you can find no proof of this over the past 20 years as handguns outnumber that statistic by a rather large margin (roughly 3 to 1). You have fallen for assumption, please research that number than go off thoughts. Also, understand that FBI statistics lump all shootings under the rifle category, which includes black rifles into the same number as any other rifle...thus that number is indeed much lower than the 3 to 1.

I am assuming you just are parroting things you have heard, so I am trying to help your statements become at least truthful in your defense.

This is why banning "assault" rifles is called a slope. It will not make much of an effect and then when the item that really is the greater use is noted it will be the new villain. And the beat goes on.

LOL now that is funny. PS invite me because that sounds fun.:D

An AR-15 style weapon was reportedly used by: 1) Uvalde shooter 2) Parkland shooter (Smith and Wesson M&P15, that manufacturer's version of the AR-15) 3) Las Vegas shooter (23 different weapons were recovered in the gunman's hotel suite, including multiple AR-15 style rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition) 4) Aurora Colorado (One AR-15 variant from Smith & Wesson, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun and at least one .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol, according to) 5) Sandy Hook (Remington AR-15-style bushmaster) 6) Waffle House in Nashville TN (AR-15 assault-style rifle) 7) San Bernadino Office party (Two AR-15 variants (Smith & Wesson M&P assault rifle and a DPMS Panther Arms assault rifle) a Smith & Wesson handgun and a Llama handgun) 8) Midland/Odessa (At least one AR-15 variant, as stated in a Justice Department press release about a case involving the man who sold the gun to the shooter.) 9) Poway Synagogue near San Diego 10) Sutherland Springs Texas (Ruger AR-15 variant) 11) Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh ("multiple firearms'' including a Colt AR-15 rifle)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...gs/7039204002/

In a 2016 blog post, the NRA referred to the AR-15 as "America's most popular rifle" https://web.archive.org/web/20191116...popular-rifle/

It has been reported that there are 20 million AR-15 style rifles in circulation in the USA: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-2...on-2022-5?op=1

Ubiquitous does not mean it is the most popular gun in the country. But it does mean they can be found pretty much everywhere.

Listing off instances it was used does not make it the most used gun in mass shootings, facts say it is not. FBI statistics slap it in a general rifle category which includes any and every rifle made and it's still not in the neighborhood...not even in the suburb.

That was my statement.

Okay, do you have any evidence supporting your facts?

It could be that the weapon was just used in virtually all high profile mass shootings, such as ones in schools and ones with particularly high amounts of deaths. I realize there are technically about 1 mass shooting per day or something like. I am sure a lot of those aren't with an AR-15 style weapon.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-types-used/

These are FBI statistics.

They also to not break down the rifle category by scary or that looks like my granddad's, this is all rifles.

That seems like a "slight" exaggeration. Since the FBI lists 132 over 40 years.

Thank you for sharing the statistics showing 75% of mass shootings are with handguns. I can't speak for Deertick, so I'll let him reply.

But I wonder if there is sort of a copycat situation with shooters in schools. I think they want to look badass, and they think the AR-15 does. I think a lot of them don't know much about guns. Supposedly the Uvalde 18 year old shooter had never shot a gun before.

That would be my guess also.

1. No you haven't. And I believe CG defined ubiquitous in context for you.

2. I neither agree nor disagree with your contention (other than the "assumption" part), as there has been no definitive data report that I am aware of. Using your logic that all are lumped into "rifles", then one could illogically claim that they are ALL AR style, no?

There is no consensus on what qualifies as a mass shooting. Some are based on number killed, some on number shot. Some exclude gang and drug related, some don't. There are databases that specify make/model used in nearly all cases, but I am not aware of any sortable. I do "feel" that a large majority of the '3+ shot' are handguns.

3. I don't "parrot" anything. I have pushed back on the notion that the 2nd provides unfettered access. I know that "unfettered" is not actually the case, but there are many that have fought EVERY.SINGLE.FETTER. tooth and nail. I'm *for* strict regulation, not banning guns.

4. See post 877. No one has argued against it.

Edited to add: I cannot see the source of the stats that you cited, but see that they are counting 3+ fatalities. Change this criteria to persons shot, and that number skyrockets.

"Since 2013, the source defines a mass shooting as any single attack in a public place with three or more fatalities, in line with the definition by the FBI. Before 2013, a mass shooting was defined as any single attack in a public place with four or more fatalities."

I guess it depends on how you define mass shooting.

According to the Rockefeller Institute for Government (which I had never heard of before) there are about 20 a year, I think as of 2020.

They define a mass shooting an incident of targeted violence carried out by one or more shooters at one or more public or populated locations. Multiple victims (both injuries and fatalities) are associated with the attack, and both the victims and location(s) are chosen either at random or for their symbolic value. The event occurs within a single 24-hour period, though most attacks typically last only a few minutes. The motivation of the shooting must not correlate with gang violence or targeted militant or terroristic activity.

https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/ma...ing-factsheet/

But Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research group that tracks shootings and their characteristics in the United States, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, excluding the perpetrator(s), are shot in one location at roughly the same time. If you define it this way, the numbers are much higher: 611 mass shootings in 2020 alone.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Now you have a somewhat logical conclusion.

These are usually mentally and socially challenged individuals for the most part and looking to cement themselves from a nobody into a media superstar. It's a Warhol effort to gain fame and thanks to the media, it works.

It is also fact that 690 people yearly win over a million dollars via lottery and that stat only includes logically people buying tickets.

The most biased website available everytown USA (because I am not cherry picking facts) states this -
Since 2013 there were at least 943 incidents of gunfire on school grounds, resulting in 321 deaths and 652 injuries nationally.

That number would include a large number of suicide and gang instances unrelated to mass shootings of course, but that helps their point and that's what people do.

It's a silly argument, but if I look at generally does it make more sense statistically to scare the crap out of kids by putting them in bunkers for infinitesimal chances or to teach them how to handle the more common chance of them winning a million dollars without going bankrupt?

Everything is perspective.

agreed, it's a silly statement (kinda) but the hyperbole of school shootings daily is also. One dead kid is too many, but chasing resolutions is not that easy of an answer. Your villain will just be replaced with another.

An agreeable commonality between all these recent kids is that everyone seemed to see it coming and all signs were ignored. As they were 18 years old, the childhood mental health and police notes do not show on a background check as they were juveniles. Would a more logical first step be addressing the loophole that juvenile records are not included? I can justify that and find ground.

Actually both links you posted make sense on how to count them. Thank you for the links.:)

I love that the gun violence archive accurately breaks down numbers to help remove shadows of vagueness purposely left off most reports.

The listed instances of defensive use should be eye opening to those unfamiliar and that think the news item the other day is somehow an anomaly.

Those numbers are verboten to show by many.

Others may wonder why it is 19% more likely to have an accidental shooting and 94% more likely to be used in a suicide, than a DGU?