states with stricter gun control have fewer mass shootings

Again, you've brought up points that I've already addressed. I could copy and paste answers and their resultant dialogues but ultimately, they lead to you dropping the point entirely and then bringing up the same point in the next page over as if you hadn't dropped the point. This doesn't even address the fact that there are pages of unaddressed points entirely. Should I create a page of those most important points that were again asked and were again unaddressed? 

your whole point is murders of over x number of people is > total murders per year, then you have to ask why when they are < 0.5% of the total,

 but an arbitrary one

 you've tried to make an argument based on emotion

the study you claim shows the Clinton ban had an impact didn't show what you thought it would, plenty of contra studies or at the very least inconclusive.  

you toss in terms like "lethality" and others you can't define or give context for, no specifics, 

then you admit the flaws of the Clinton ban

but weren't those done by "experts"?

The ban was also an emotional reaction and not based on any study or facts, 

 it was inconclusive thus it expired and wasn't renewed.

"There are multiple ways to solve problems certainly. However it's ignorant to avoid the fact that without guns in the first place, mass shootings cannot take place. Easy access to guns is exactly the reason why America is a world leader among first world countries in mass shootings."

"Having no guns at all prevents gun deaths. Reducing the amount of guns reduces the amount of gun deaths which is almost equally as admirable."

"I do not care about outlier events. I care about the norm."

"I have complete faith that regulations will catch up to such an eventuality. In civilised countries anyway"

"You further refine and develop your strategy. The first step of this, is to acknowledge that there is no place for AR-15s in the hands of civilians. "

"You can only build up effective policies brick by brick. Preventing mass gun murders is a brick in an overall scheme to reduce murders."

" I mean really, at the very least would a gun license and a gun registration be too much to ask for?"

"No you're right. There isn't a lot of data. However the best way to move forwards is to take these preliminary results and apply them to further laws and see what pops up and then study those results further. "

your "expert" study has been picked apart rather easily

other studies either show no causation or at best are inconclusive

I'm not expert by any means, even I pointed out the many flaws with your study.

Thinking something has 'potential' is taking it on faith that will MIGHT work.  Like Obama care you have to pass it to know what's in it, or you have to try it to see if it will work.

While that is true logically, that is why I think you are describing a ban, or a path to a ban of more than just "assault" weapons, which states have defined in their own way and differ between states.

the norm is handguns not "assault weapons"  the percentages and stats show that.

yes you have faith, that has been clear.

first step, yep to banning other guns.

without those you can't confiscate guns which is why a registration is unconstitutional.

aka take it on faith.

lethality,

potential for killing more

assault weapon

how mere cosmetics make it more "lethal" or dangerous etc.  

you cherry picked mass murders otherwise you couldn't make an argument for bans or more gun control.

post #68 , #80 using a liberal biased source as well as 114 page study which was far more specific in analyzing the data then the 9 page one you tried to present.

The study you cling to is b.s. for all the reasons and sources I've already given.

On the contrary I think I could certainly make a case for more generalized gun control. However, if you notice, the title of this thread is labelled mass shootings. 

Again, this does nothing to address the study that I provided, that indicated average death rate per mass shooting had decreased. Your source further notes that 

yes that's right, but you turned it into an assault weapons ban and only mass murders committed by them

that is beyond absurd, these mass shootings are already anomalies, so how could anyone possibly predict how many people would have been killed if they didn't have an assault weapon, I mean are you serious?  they can time travel, travel different dimensions and say how many people would or would not be killed based on the weapon the shooter had?  wow talk about faith.

how do you predict were and when a mass shooting will occur and how many would be killed exactly?  Because that's some next level insight I want to know about.

so many flaws, the number killed is a direct result of how long it took to stop the shooter, how many mass murders were stopped prematurely by law enforcement intervention or someone else with a gun?  no way to know.  Far too many variables and bias in that study to make much of anything about their "findings"

again tell me how they know how many less would have died with or without a ban, it's not possible.

when you have people grouped up in an enclosed place it doesn't matter what kind of semi auto you have, like the Orlando bar, when people are trapped it should be obvious that it doesn't matter, assault rifle or not, makes no difference, just like it didn't matter at Virginia Tech or the others in the top 10

now tell me how anyone could possibly know that if murderer x didn't have access to an assault rifle the end result still wouldn't have been similar, that might have changed their location or plan, but no one can say the results wouldn't still have been similar.

All this prognosticating in the study can't possibly account for the numerous variables, many of which are critical.  This biased study is a guess and you have to take it on faith.

how do you come up with an average death rate when all of these were unique and a lot of circumstances affected that rate, if the shooter is killed or stopped sooner than later, well can't make too much of those numbers can you.

How are the number killed a fault of the gun and not of law enforcement to stop them sooner?  that's how this game is played right?  If an armed guard encountered any of the murderers then the numbers probably wouldn't have been what they were which includes the ones committed by handguns.  This study is just fortune telling.

you are the one changing to topic to fit your agenda which is banning assault weapons, since hand guns are used far more often in mass murders.  You selectively choose your stats to fit that narrative, by trying to focus on the number of people killed per incident.

there isn't enough data to make any real statistical inference, even you admitted how the data is lacking.  Your faith in the study doesn't allow you to see the obvious and their bias.

the average has been consistent

I'm not aware that any of these murderers stopped after killing x number of people, but instead were stopped, often killed, so the numbers are a direct result of them being stopped within a given time period.  This is why no real conclusions can be made by what weapon was used.  If not stopped and given enough time these numbers could be dwarfed by a person with a knife or hammer.

so to say that study took into account these variables is patently false because it's not possible.

some years there were no mass murders that met the study or your criteria so to try and glean some kind of statistical data from such rare events is a joke.

to try and draw a statistical conclusion based on 'what if' is fortune telling at best or perfect scenario which isn't realistic.

the who,what,where and why to mass shootings no one really knows just like the factors that mitigate or fail to mitigate the outcomes, which no study can account for.  To try and claim the assault weapon ban did anything with certainty is plain wrong, it's inconclusive at best.

the only way to reduce the number of people killed at one time is to stop the murderer as soon as possible, pretty simple, pretty basic.  

And since all semi autos function the same way, have the same rate of fire an arbitrary assault weapon ban is meaningless.  Unless you'd like to try and show how the cosmetics that categorize them as assault weapons make such a big difference compared to their non cosmetic or featureless counter parts.

Great, now add in the rest of the data and decide whether the value for the 1994-2004 is statistically significant.

The number of wounded and killed reflect this variable.

Is there some sort of statistical theory that you can reference to support these views? 

while the mechanism that fires bullets in semi-autos is likely to be the same, and hence a similar rate of fire all around, the features that surround this mechanism can vary quite widely.

Mass shootings are rare, but rarer still are uses cases of AR-15s/AK-47s over other types of firearms.

I do not care about outlier events. I care about the norm.

No you're right. There isn't a lot of data. However the best way to move forwards is to take these preliminary results and apply them to further laws and see what pops up and then study those results further. 

you arguing that assault weapons cannot kill people at a faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons? Ultimately that's what I'm interested in and not the aesthetics.

I tallied up the deaths, years, incidents for the assault weapons, nothing more to add, that's what your study was about.

the number of wounded and killed is a direct result of how many bullets were fired, not the gun firing them.

the numbers are right there in black and white, not much else to say.

ok such as?  I've suggested perhaps accused you of a semi-auto ban and not simply an assault weapons ban, but you don't know, won't find out or in any way articulate what makes an assault weapon more deadly, lethal whatever than it's featureless counterpart.  So you want to ban something that you really can't define, don't really know what it is or why it's different than things that function in the exact same manner.

show me some evidence that a pistol grip, barrel shroud etc makes a gun more deadly, lethal etc

even with the stats I gave they had other guns besides the assault weapon and most of these cases it's not clear or specific how many people were killed with which gun because in at least of some these, more than one weapon was used.  So the numbers I gave were skewed in your favor.

sounds like outlier events, since they are <0.5% of gun murders

so why ban ak-47s?  they might have been used twice?  ever?  Is a featureless Ak-47 still an assault weapon or just a semi auto one?

all semi auto function is the same, so this never made any sense, care to elaborate?

the norm for "mass shootings" are handguns.

sounds like faith to me.

yes, show me proof that I'm wrong.  Guns don't actually kill unless you club someone with it, but it really is the bullet isn't it.  So how do assault weapons kill at a "faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons?"

let's take some steps back and have you define what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon, what features or functions that are unique to them.

then explain how these features unique to them or deserving of assault weapon classification makes them more deadly, lethal etc than those guns with out those features and or cosmetics.

I'm looking for some real specifics here so I know exactly what you are referring to because it seems easily to add in all semi autos.

sounds like outlier events, since they are <0.5% of gun murders

so why ban ak-47s?  they might have been used twice?  ever?  Is a featureless Ak-47 still an assault weapon or just a semi auto one?

When you go back and look for quotes, you should also look at the context. The context in this case was that I was arguing that AR-15/AK-47s did not have a legitimate use case.

all semi auto function is the same, so this never made any sense, care to elaborate?

Again, context. In this context I was explaining what I thought the "Gotcha" was. That is, the use of AK-47 vs AR-15 in mass shootings

the norm for "mass shootings" are handguns.

Again, context. In this context, I was explaining that mass shooting events in countries with otherwise strict gun laws are outliers. However they would not be outliers for America, ergo they are the norm.

Briefly if you would like, could you please list what constitutes "legitimate use" of firearms?

As for what I personally think is legitimate, a use case such that the use case is unique to the tool and is demonstrably a realistic use case.

Are you saying that mass shootings are more common than acts against individuals within the United States of America?  

Would you please define what you consider to be a mass shooting?

And the opportunity to fire x many bullets reflects this.. You're drifting off-topic even in the same conversation line.

I'm asking you if your objections to those numbers have valid statistical reasoning behind them instead of "I don't think this is right, therefore it isn't right"

Well one example is that rifles are heavier than handguns. Which means there is less recoil. Less recoil means less time to re-position the gun to fire the next shot. Another example is that rifles have longer barrels, which increases accuracy and bullet velocity.

Was this not also the case with handguns?

 did not have a legitimate use case.

They typically fire at a greater rate than other gun mechanisms such as lever action or bolt action. 

 Why don't you compile all my replies on what I think should be banned and then answer your own question. And then come back with what still remains.

the variance from year to year and time spans doesn't make for any real comparison along with the rarity of it happening

all the mitigating things I have already mentions that affect those numbers.

not at all, because now you acknowledge that a main factor are the bullets (x many) which shows the firearm is less important.

it's impossible to say the numbers in the study show what they claim for the reasons I've already given, the things that can't be accounted for, lack of dimensional and time travel.

I would call that a political answer lol, but I'll try to be more clear  So how do assault weapons kill at a "faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons?" like other semi auto weapons which were not and are not classified as assault weapons because they lack the cosmetic features.  Or is it your position that all semi auto rifles should be considered assault weapons?

I've asked you and we talked about this being a semi auto ban rather than an assault weapon ban, you said it was just an assault weapon ban if I remember correctly.  so then we have to specifically define what an assault weapon is to you, what sets it apart from other semi auto guns.  

Now if you want to say yes you would ban all semi auto rifles then that would be that.  But as of yet you have not said that and indicated all semi auto rifles would not be affected by the ban.  If it's not a total semi auto ban I want to see where the lines are drawn.  I don't really expect straight answer and I recognized the political speak when I see it, giving a non committal or vague answers.  You selectively ignore the questions I pose to you that require a specific and or detailed answer, even ones that just require a yes or no.

I gave you a picture of an ar-15 and the ruger mini-14 ranch hand, one has been banned by the assault weapons ban, the other was not.  Would your version ban the ruger mini-14 ranch hand, why or why not.

standard handgun is likely to be less accurate, have more recoil and deliver bullets with less force than an assault weapon, despite both being semi-automatic.

Which just leaves at least semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine.

standard handgun is likely to be less accurate, have more recoil and deliver bullets with less force than an assault weapon, despite both being semi-automatic. All these factors contribute to the ability to kill "at a faster rate".

Briefly if you would like, could you please list what constitutes "legitimate use" of firearms?

As for what I personally think is legitimate, a use case such that the use case is unique to the tool and is demonstrably a realistic use case.

you seem to ignore the mass murder done with a .22 caliber handgun, the smallest caliber, so that really isn't true in reality.  It's just a scare tactic.

right so it's a semi auto rifle ban now an expanded version of the 1994 Clinton ban.

but again there is little practical difference between a semi auto rifle with a detachable magazine and a semi auto handgun with a detachable magazine.  But I believe you'd also ban or limit how many rounds a magazine could hold, you just never said what that number was, though I recall you thinking around 10.

I've addressed that and mass murders that have happened does seem to prove that true.  there is practically no recoil on a .22 then there's a variety of calibers in-between the 22 and a 380 which again has minimal recoil it's also call a 9mm short, then the 9mm which is the standard for which all other handgun rounds are compared.  Very easily managed which is why it's so popular, common and prevalent.  Because again if you could time travel remove the rifles you can't predict in the majority of those shootings they wouldn't have just used a handgun.

except for Las Vegas these happened at close range so whatever perceived accuracy difference you think there is, isn't relevant in those cases.

you should really look up ballistic tests on youtube so you can know what you are talking about, check them out for 10mm, 45, 357 magnum, 44 magnum there's others but that should be enough, those are all handgun rounds, then check out the .223  I don't think you'd have any preference with which one you'd rather be shot with or question the legality of any of them.  then look up the 9mm and you'll come to the same conclusion.

And once you do that you'll finally get to the point of banning all semi auto, which as I said way back is where you are headed but appear to not realize it yet.

you want to see some serious damage look up a 12 gauge shot gun slug.

Is recreational activity, such as "plinking" and general target shooting, a legitimate use?

Is decoration and art a legitimate use?

Is teaching a minor firearm ethics and safety a legitimate use?

Is historical and educational application a legitimate use?

Is pest control a legitimate use?

Is hunting a legitimate use?

Is Self Defense a legitimate use?

Is Common Defense a legitimate use?

Is training and sport a legitimate use?

What does a realistic use case entail?  

 I said that handguns are typically less lethal than rifles.

Less energy over less area is less damage.

But there are practical differences as has been established

Saying "Here are a couple of cases where this is not the case" does not address the overall generalization.

do you have proof or is that just opinion?

Well one example is that rifles are heavier than handguns. Which means there is less recoil. Less recoil means less time to re-position the gun to fire the next shot. Another example is that rifles have longer barrels, which increases accuracy and bullet velocity. Obviously the more accurate the shot, the more likely you hit your intended target and the more energy the bullet has, the more damage to the target. There are other more obvious things such as handguns being smaller and more easier to conceal. Which means there is less time to react in comparison to if an assault rifle were in plain view at all times.

all opinion and situational

pretty trivial based on the reality and ballistic testing, dead it dead whatever damage you think can be equated is irrelevant to that fact. 

Being wounded has so many variables the #1 being location of the wound, there is no way to make any kind of statistical inference based on that because you can't predict who will be wounded and where.

modern designs have been and continue to address and kind of recoil/mussel flip, you are making way too much of it, again a trivial factor at best.  If those are the the strong arguments for bans, they are pretty weak.

but isn't that what you've done by focusing on mass murders via rifle?  or not focusing on all gun murders?

I'm not following your logic for banning all semi auto rifles but not all semi auto handguns other than you think the key and notable differences is recoil and accuracy.  Are those the only defining factors?

Hand guns can be fitted with red dot, holographic sights, laser sights etc.  the post of the pistol brace (roni) would mitigate recoil for the feeble that couldn't handle it, which is why they are an uncommon oddity.  Probably plenty of diy things should anyone be so inclined,  What about ported barrels, the expulsion of the gases go up applying a downward force to compensate for the muzzle flip.  but again a trivial thing.

Sure. Think of most tame semi-automatic handgun you can think of. Then think of all the ways in which you could extend this gun to make it more lethal. Imagine those extensions are banned. The resulting gun, despite being a semi-automatic gun will not be banned.

are you finally understanding why this is or would be a weapons ban vs what started out as an "assault weapons" ban?

The physics of guns and projectiles are fairly well understood. 

That's why averages were used.

To what extent have recoil and muzzel flip been addressed in modern design. To the extent that both can be completely eliminated in a handgun without any other tradeoffs?

Then think of all the ways in which you could extend this gun to make it more lethal.

in the laboratory that's true, what I'm asking is any proof at all that it somehow translates to real event, real situation and real world statistical differences.

really because more than the average of mass murders are by handguns, I find that a bit ironic.

since it's subjective and individualistic there's no way to measure or quantify it.  There are no trade offs in the improvements and ways they try to compensate mussel flip, which the vast majority of owners don't need or worry about, it's more of a cosmetic  or novelty which is why they aren't standard or has a large market.

and yet the hand gun or other mass murders didn't have any of these "extensions" whatever that means, because you've agreed cosmetics aren't relevant in this topic.  So far all semi auto rifles is in the ban, but I'm not aware of what you mean by "extensions"  Do you mean anything that allows someone to use it accurately?

Because that would seem, well, rather stupid.  If you are going to allow people to own guns having them be accurate is a safety feature as well as managing recoil or mussel flip.  If someone is hunting, target shooting, self defense situations, you want that person to be able to use that tool, aka gun in the best and safest way.  So you'd ban things that could allow that type of control over the gun?  Doesn't make any sense to me, I'll need you to explain it.

give me a list of "extensions" that increase lethal potential but doesn't affect safety to the lawful user.

in the laboratory that's true, what I'm asking is any proof at all that it somehow translates to real event, real situation and real world statistical differences.

Physics do not magically change once you translate it to practical applications. That's why bridges function instead of magically collapsing. Again, if you have evidence otherwise, you can submit it and collect your Nobel prize.

I've seen the data and I know you're talking out of your ass when you're claiming that these mass murders didn't have any of these extensions. As for what I mean by extensions, literally everything that you mentioned in your previous post are extensions.

Which just leaves at least semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine.

You took issue with pistol grips, and I have have no problem with excluding those. 

I'm not sure on the specifics on why features were or were not included in the original assault weapons ban. 

Since you are adamant that cosmetic features cannot contribute this, and I think that this is also likely the case, such features to me are ignorable. 

How does banning them impact day-to-day use of those tools? If you were to ban laser sights for example, how does this make them unsafe?