-->
@HistoryBuff
Again, you don't care about Black Lives.
Stop whitesplaining why 10 kids are more important.
Should America ban the AR 15 and AK 47/assault weapons?
Posts
Total:
81
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well what if I'm the peaceful owner of multiple AK-47 and variant rifles. Should the government send cops to physically come take my rifles away from me even though I own them?
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, you don't care about Black Lives.Stop whitesplaining why 10 kids are more important.
this is a very common attempt at deflection the right loves to use.
IE "issue 1 isn't important because look how serious issue 2 is. Why are you such a monster that you don't care about issue 2?"
You want to change topic and make it seem like somehow I am at fault for not discussing your preferred topic. As a society, we should be capable of handling multiple issues. There is no reason we can't get mass shootings better under control as well as day to day gun crime.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well what if I'm the peaceful owner of multiple AK-47 and variant rifles. Should the government send cops to physically come take my rifles away from me even though I own them?
depends on what the law is. You could design the system to grandfather in existing weapons. You could design the law to allow them to keep them, but only if they modify them to only be capable of semi auto fire. There are different paths you could take.
but again, let me re-frame it. What if I owned a cocaine factory before cocaine was illegal. Should i be allowed to continue to produce it because i was doing it before it was illegal?
-->
@HistoryBuff
because the tool itself is dangerous. The tool itself is costing people their lives. Having a gunman able to fire off 30 rounds in a matter of seconds gets people killed.
Yes, guns are definitely dangerous. Yes, in the wrong hands, they can be used to commit horrible acts of murder. However, guns can also be used to save lives. According to the CDC, guns are used defensively 500,000 to 3,000,000 times a year. To quote the study, "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)."
While lives weren't saved in all of those cases, since most violent crimes are things like rape and burglary rather than murder, the data suggests that using guns for self-defense does decrease a person's chance of being injured or killed. To quote from the study I linked, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004)." My point is that you're only telling one side of the story. Yes, guns kill, but they can also save. The question is whether they kill more people or whether they save more people. Given that, according to the study, guns are used more frequently to stop criminals than to commit crime, it seems reasonable to believe that they save more than they kill.
Most people don't, or shouldn't need that many rounds for self defense.
Based on what? It's easy to make sweeping assertions, but what are those assertions based on? Secondly, even if most people don't need that many rounds, that implies that some people still do. Even though that might be relatively uncommon, mass shootings are also relatively uncommon. Again, before you can just say, "High-capacity mags kill, so let's ban them," you first have to find out whether they kill more people or save more people, or are neutral. However, you're only considering when they kill but are ignoring when they save.
If you are firing 30 rounds at someone in "self defense" then there is probably a pretty good chance of other people getting caught in the crossfire anyway.
Yes, crossfire is definitely an issue. Again, you're ignoring the other issues. If someone shoots a mass shooter, he might hit a few people by accident; how many people could the mass shooter have killed if he wasn't stopped? And again, what's the data on this issue? How common are deaths or injuries due to crossfire?
how many scenarios actually come up where someone needs to be able to fire a dozen rounds at someone to protect themselves? Probably not very many.
How many scenarios come up where having a "high-capacity" magazine ban would have saved lives? Also not very many. Mass shootings are relatively rare events. Furthermore, how many lives would actually be saved in an individual mass shooting by a "high-capacity" magazine ban? Remember, the Columbine massacre happened when there was such a ban. How many lives did that ban save then?
Basically, you are saying someone in the rare circumstance where they needed a large mag for self defense should die so that dozens of potential victims in mass shootings can live. The answer is yes.
Firstly, how do you know that a ban on high-capacity magazines would save dozens of lives? From 1982 to 2019, 941 people were killed in mass shootings.
With some practice, it only takes a few seconds to switch out a magazine. A high-capacity magazine ban would only slightly slow down mass killers. Sure, a few lives might be saved. But again, what's the flip side of the coin? How many lives would be saved by having a magazine with more than five rounds? Gang violence is common in America. Facing multiple criminal assailants is nothing new. Having a magazine large enough to deal with those threats would save lives. You're simply asserting that such magazines kill more than they save based on absolutely nothing.
the gunman had to stop and reload after a few shots.
Do you know how long that actually takes? Here's some guy reloading his AR-15. Switching out the magazine took 2-3 seconds, and there are only 4-5 seconds between his last shot on the first mag and his first shot on the second mag.
That would only be a minor inconvenience to a mass shooter. Furthermore, as you try to make it harder for mass murderers to use guns, they will start using other methods. How many were killed at the Boston Marathon from pressure cooker bombs, of all things? And for criminals too dumb to build one of those, they could just follow the example of some lunatic in France who killed 84 people by simply driving a large truck into a crowd.
It doesn't take guns to kill large numbers of people. Evil people find a way to commit evil crimes.
In summary, there are several major problems with your ideas.
1. You're ignoring the lives that can be saved by guns and/or magazines with more than 5 bullets. In order to properly evaluate whether banning AR-15s and high-capacity mags will actually save lives, you need to compare the lives lost as a result of those things to the lives saved. Instead, you're focusing only on the lives lost.
2. You're making sweeping generalizations without evidence. How do you know how many bullets people might need to defend themselves? How do you know that lives would actually be saved by high-capacity magazine bans? You're simply asserting that your ideas would save lives in the absence of actual data.
3. You're ignoring the fact that guns aren't the only way to commit mass murder. They happen to be the most convenient in America, but they aren't the only option for criminals. If some random dude with a semi can kill 84 people in one go, which is more than the average number of people killed annually in mass shootings in America, then I don't think going after guns is actually going to solve the problem.
4. You're ignoring the fact that mass shootings, while tragic, are relatively rare. Even if situations where assault weapons and high-capacity magazines can save lives are rare, so are the situations where they end lives.
-->
@HistoryBuff
this is a very common attempt at deflection the right loves to use.
So now Black Lives are a deflection.
Check your white privilege sir. You can put 9000 lives in the back of the bus another time.
-->
@HistoryBuff
An appeal to legality is an appeal to authority. Also, while in the scenario given, cocaine and ak's would share the quality of being illegal, but they don't share the quality of being firearms. So perhaps I should rephrase, should the police come and sieze firearms, house to house?
-->
@SirAnonymous
Given that, according to the study, guns are used more frequently to stop criminals than to commit crime, it seems reasonable to believe that they save more than they kill.
your stats don't say that though. They say they are used by victims as often as they are used by criminals. but that crime could be trespassing, or vandalism, or a bar fight. In which case no one was particularly likely to die if the victim didn't have a gun.
Additionally, those stats don't say how often the gun was even fired in self defense. The presence of a gun might be enough to deter the crime. At which point a limit on the magazine size wouldn't negatively impact survival of victims very much at all.
Based on what? It's easy to make sweeping assertions, but what are those assertions based on?
well, Canada has strict controls on this and there doesn't seem to be any issue with people defending themselves.
Secondly, even if most people don't need that many rounds, that implies that some people still do. Even though that might be relatively uncommon, mass shootings are also relatively uncommon.
What defines uncommon? There is more than 1 mass shooting per day in america. Here is an article about it. There were 90 mass shootings in June alone. If something happens every day, it isn't uncommon.
If someone shoots a mass shooter, he might hit a few people by accident; how many people could the mass shooter have killed if he wasn't stopped?
in a mass shooting scenario, having people returning fire with automatic weapons seems like it is much more likely to cause problems than to resolve the issue.
And again, what's the data on this issue? How common are deaths or injuries due to crossfire?
I don't believe this kind of research is done. The government needs to fund extensive research into this topic to better answer these questions.
Furthermore, how many lives would actually be saved in an individual mass shooting by a "high-capacity" magazine ban? Remember, the Columbine massacre happened when there was such a ban. How many lives did that ban save then?
I wasn't aware the US had ever had a ban on high capacity magazines. could you provide more information on what ban you are referring to?
Gang violence is common in America. Facing multiple criminal assailants is nothing new. Having a magazine large enough to deal with those threats would save lives.
what? why? who is having large scale shootouts with gangs? We would be much better off if those gangs couldn't access high capacity weapons than with civilians shooting automatic weapons back at them.
Do you know how long that actually takes? Here's some guy reloading his AR-15. Switching out the magazine took 2-3 seconds, and there are only 4-5 seconds between his last shot on the first mag and his first shot on the second mag.
ok, so lets time this out. he fires 5 shots in about a second. then takes 3 seconds to reload. fires another 5 rounds in a second. reloads in 3 seconds. fires another 5 rounds in a second.
he fires 15 rounds in about 9 seconds. With a 30 round mag, he could fire all 30 in half that time. We are talking about doubling, maybe even tripling the amount of time it takes to fire the same number of shots. When you take into account the killer having to manage lots of mags, it could be even more than that (as he fumbles to find his 6th five round mag). That is a significant reduction in fire power.
That would only be a minor inconvenience to a mass shooter. Furthermore, as you try to make it harder for mass murderers to use guns, they will start using other methods. How many were killed at the Boston Marathon from pressure cooker bombs, of all things? And for criminals too dumb to build one of those, they could just follow the example of some lunatic in France who killed 84 people by simply driving a large truck into a crowd.
this is a super weak argument. there will always be other weapons. you can't ban kitchen knives. But that is not an argument for allowing people to stockpile killing machines designed to gun down lots of people very quickly. We should still do what we can to keep dangerous weapons out of people's hands.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Banning guns is inherently unconstitutional my friend, and that’s where this is headed
-->
@ILikePie5
Banning guns is inherently unconstitutional my friend, and that’s where this is headed
how do you figure? lots of weapons are banned. The US government already picks and chooses which weapons are legal and which aren't. We are just talking about moving that line.
-->
@HistoryBuff
how do you figure? lots of weapons are banned. The US government already picks and chooses which weapons are legal and which aren't. We are just talking about moving that line.
Moving the line to banning all guns. Got it.
-->
@HistoryBuff
how do you figure? lots of weapons are banned. The US government already picks and chooses which weapons are legal and which aren't. We are just talking about moving that line.
Moving the line to banning all guns. Got it.
-->
@ILikePie5
Moving the line to banning all guns. Got it.
no one has said they want to ban all guns. that is a lie. I certainly don't want that. We need gun control, not outright bans. Hunting rifles and shotguns are things that people need for hunting or defending their home. But they absolutely do not need an AR to do that.
-->
@HistoryBuff
no one has said they want to ban all guns. that is a lie. I certainly don't want that. We need gun control, not outright bans. Hunting rifles and shotguns are things that people need for hunting or defending their home. But they absolutely do not need an AR to do that.
Handguns kill more than ARs
The end goal is banning guns. If your problem was stopping deaths you’d ban handguns not ARs
-->
@ILikePie5
Handguns kill more than ARsThe end goal is banning guns. If your problem was stopping deaths you’d ban handguns not ARs
ok, but those are sort of parallel issues. I have already said that. More control is needed on handguns too. But no, the end goal is not to ban all guns. That is a lie the NRA and fox news tell people to scare them.
-->
@HistoryBuff
ok, but those are sort of parallel issues. I have already said that. More control is needed on handguns too. But no, the end goal is not to ban all guns. That is a lie the NRA and fox news tell people to scare them.
So you want to ban ARs and Handguns? Cause if they’re parallel they’d have the same solution right ?
-->
@ILikePie5
So you want to ban ARs and Handguns? Cause if they’re parallel they’d have the same solution right ?
man, you are really bringing the lies today.... I specifically said I am not talking about banning all guns. How did you take that and somehow read the exact opposite?
-->
@ILikePie5
They want to ban AR 15 cause they look scary, not because they want to reduce gun deaths.
-->
@ILikePie5
Pretty sure homemade crockpot bombs were illegal in Boston too.
They didn't go around confiscating and registering crockpots and limiting import and manufacture of crockpots after the Boston Bombing.
Guess crockpots do not look as scary as an ar-15
-->
@HistoryBuff
your stats don't say that though. They say they are used by victims as often as they are used by criminals. but that crime could be trespassing, or vandalism, or a bar fight.
No, those stats don't say that. What they do say is that guns are used to prevent crimes more than they are used to commit crimes. In other words, they reduce crime.
Additionally, those stats don't say how often the gun was even fired in self defense. The presence of a gun might be enough to deter the crime.
Which makes it even better, since no one gets hurt if the criminal just decides not to mess with that person.
At which point a limit on the magazine size wouldn't negatively impact survival of victims very much at all.
True, but I was trying to make a point about guns in general with that stat, not make a point specifically about magazines. Sorry if I confused you there.
well, Canada has strict controls on this and there doesn't seem to be any issue with people defending themselves.
You just defended your sweeping assertions with yet another sweeping assertion. What data to you have to back up your claims?
What defines uncommon? There is more than 1 mass shooting per day in america. Here is an article about it. There were 90 mass shootings in June alone. If something happens every day, it isn't uncommon.
Highly misleading. Here is the data that article uses.
Notice something about these incidents: the vast majority of them have fewer than three deaths. In other words, they don't meet the federal standard for a mass killing, which is three or more deaths. The article you linked gets away with this by using a sleight of hand. They use the term mass shooting, which has no standard definition (the definition the source used is four or more people, not including the shooter, being shot). However, a lot of people, including myself, use mass shooting and mass killing as synonyms, even though they aren't. Thus, the article gives the impression that there are mass killings every day, even though that isn't the case. Also, look at this quote from the source's methodology page. "GVA does not parse the definition [of mass shooting] to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot." This allows them to include gang violence in their archive as well. That source is pulling out all the stops to inflate the numbers.
in a mass shooting scenario, having people returning fire with automatic weapons seems like it is much more likely to cause problems than to resolve the issue.
Firstly, what automatic weapons? AR-15s and civilian AK-47s aren't automatic. Secondly, this is yet another sweeping assertion made without supporting data.
I don't believe this kind of research is done. The government needs to fund extensive research into this topic to better answer these questions.
Yes, they should. However, that also means that you don't actually know how big of a problem crossfire would be.
I wasn't aware the US had ever had a ban on high capacity magazines. could you provide more information on what ban you are referring to?
"For example, in the United States, the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included limits regarding magazines that could hold more than ten rounds."
what? why? who is having large scale shootouts with gangs?
Firstly, I never said anything about large-scale shoot-outs. One person vs. a gang doesn't imply a large-scale shoot-out. Secondly, "these estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually."
There are about 15,000 homicides a year, so gangs account for about 1950 homicides a year. I doubt the whole gang was present for all of those, so the number of times those victims would need high-capacity magazines would go down. On the other hand, those numbers don't include the number of times people were attacked by gangs but survived, so the numbers would go up again. Also, those numbers don't include violent crimes committed by multiple assailants who weren't part of a gang, which would also make the numbers go up. So yes, there are times when a high-capacity magazine is needed for self-defense.
ok, so lets time this out. he fires 5 shots in about a second. then takes 3 seconds to reload. fires another 5 rounds in a second. reloads in 3 seconds. fires another 5 rounds in a second.he fires 15 rounds in about 9 seconds.
The number of people who can actually fire 5 shots in one second can probably be counted on only one or two hands, since the world record is something like 6 or 7 shots a second (for semi-autos. Automatics aren't used in mass shootings). Also, you're forgetting the time it takes to aim those shots. If we assume one second to aim, then he fires 5 shots in 5 seconds and takes 3 seconds to reload, so that's 5 shots every 8 seconds. Over 30 seconds, this killer has fired 19 shots. However, this ignores the fact that many mass killers use multiple guns, so they could functionally have 10 or more shots before having to reload. Accounting for that, the killer gets off about 24 shots in 30 seconds. A killer without the ban can fire 30 shots in 30 seconds. If we look at the data of mass killings committed with guns compiled here (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/), the majority of these are 15 or fewer people getting shot and about half are 10 or fewer, counting the injured. Depending on how good a shot the killer is, he'll only have to reload once or twice, if at all. Thus, this ban isn't going to save huge numbers of people. You might reach a few dozen. That doesn't compare well to the number of times a high-capacity magazine could potentially save people. Of course, it's impossible to truly know how many people were killed because of high-capacity magazines or how many people they saved, since that would require knowing what would happen in alternate realities where the killer didn't have one or the victim did have one. Still, there doesn't seem to be a strong justification for banning them.
this is a super weak argument.
No, it isn't. If banning various types of guns only results in the same number of people dying from other weapons, zero lives have been saved. You've just changed how those people were killed, which is an exercise in futility.
But that is not an argument for allowing people to stockpile killing machines designed to gun down lots of people very quickly
That's not what AR-15s were designed for, but that's a minor point. In reality, dangerous weapons are only an issue if fewer people die in the absence of those weapons. However, if people just get killed by maniacs driving through crowds instead, then banning those dangerous weapons hasn't saved anyone, and you've taken away people's rights for nothing. The question is not whether guns kill people. The question is whether fewer people would die in the absence of guns. If the answer is no, then banning guns or various types or features of guns won't save anyone.
-->
@Greyparrot
They want to ban AR 15 cause they look scary, not because they want to reduce gun deaths.
nope. I want to ban ARs because they are regularly used in mass shootings.
Pretty sure homemade crockpot bombs were illegal in Boston too.They didn't go around confiscating and registering crockpots and limiting import and manufacture of crockpots after the Boston Bombing.Guess crockpots do not look as scary as an ar-15
one crockpot was used in a bomb. ARs have been used in hundreds, if not thousands, of mass shootings. Comparing the 2 is very silly.
-->
@HistoryBuff
ARs have been used in hundreds, if not thousands, of mass shootings.
Just curious, how many American mass shootings with an ar-15 happened in your lifetime?
-->
@HistoryBuff
man, you are really bringing the lies today.... I specifically said I am not talking about banning all guns. How did you take that and somehow read the exact opposite?
Nice dodge. Why is the issue about ARs when Handguns kill more people? Logically you should be talking about banning handguns no?
Logically according to you it would stop killing right?
-->
@HistoryBuff
ARs have been used in hundreds, if not thousands, of mass shootings.
You’re actually high lmao
-->
@ILikePie5
Pressure cooker bombs are not nearly as scary looking as AutoRifles.
-->
@Greyparrot
We were talking about guns in my college class and I basically forced all the liberals to admit you’re not solving the problem per your own logic unless you ban all guns. It was pretty fun. The teacher who has a PhD didn’t even know what incorporation as a judicial doctrine was. I was ded
-->
@SirAnonymous
No, those stats don't say that. What they do say is that guns are used to prevent crimes more than they are used to commit crimes. In other words, they reduce crime.
your stats don't say that either. Attempting the crime, is a crime. So by the time the gun was used, there was already a crime. So no, it does not reduce crime.
Which makes it even better, since no one gets hurt if the criminal just decides not to mess with that person.
ok. but that means that restrictions on mag sizes would have no negative effect, but still have a positive effect. that's a win-win.
At which point a limit on the magazine size wouldn't negatively impact survival of victims very much at all.True, but I was trying to make a point about guns in general with that stat, not make a point specifically about magazines. Sorry if I confused you there.
ok. but no one is talking about banning all guns. I am talking about making useful regulation to control what kinds of guns and gun mods are available. Thus you can reduce the risks, but people would still be able to defend themselves in a legitimate scenario.
well, Canada has strict controls on this and there doesn't seem to be any issue with people defending themselves.You just defended your sweeping assertions with yet another sweeping assertion. What data to you have to back up your claims?
again, most countries don't track the number of shots a victim took to defend themselves. But canada has strict rules about magazine size and both their general death by guns per 100,000 and homicide by guns per 100,000 are considerably lower than the US. If mag size limits had a significant negative effect on people defending themselves, this shouldn't be true.
Notice something about these incidents: the vast majority of them have fewer than three deaths. In other words, they don't meet the federal standard for a mass killing,
you misread. I said "mass shooting" not "mass killing". if 4 or more people are shot, that is a mass shooting.
The article you linked gets away with this by using a sleight of hand. They use the term mass shooting, which has no standard definition (the definition the source used is four or more people, not including the shooter, being shot). However, a lot of people, including myself, use mass shooting and mass killing as synonyms, even though they aren't.
so your objection is that you are confusing shooting and killing?
Thus, the article gives the impression that there are mass killings every day, even though that isn't the case.
no it doesn't. You are simply using the wrong term in an attempt to lower the number of incidents that would qualify. If 4 people are being shot, that is obviously a very serious incident even if most of them end up surviving.
I wasn't aware the US had ever had a ban on high capacity magazines. could you provide more information on what ban you are referring to?"For example, in the United States, the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included limits regarding magazines that could hold more than ten rounds."
thank you for the information. Sadly, the assault weapons ban was far too limited. for it to apply a gun must have at least two additional characteristics, such as a flash suppressor or a folding stock, to be banned. So their weapons, one of which was a carbine with a 50 round mag, were totally legal.
what? why? who is having large scale shootouts with gangs?Firstly, I never said anything about large-scale shoot-outs. One person vs. a gang doesn't imply a large-scale shoot-out. Secondly, "these estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually."
ok. well we would all still be much better off if the gang and the victim didn't have high capacity mags. There would be alot less death.
Also, those numbers don't include violent crimes committed by multiple assailants who weren't part of a gang, which would also make the numbers go up. So yes, there are times when a high-capacity magazine is needed for self-defense.
i reject the premise that you would need a high capacity mag to defend yourself in these scenarios.
the majority of these are 15 or fewer people getting shot and about half are 10 or fewer, counting the injured. Depending on how good a shot the killer is, he'll only have to reload once or twice, if at all.
that seems to be a significant assumption. you say 15 people get shot, so it must only be 15 shots. There is no reason to think that is true. in the real world, most people do not have perfect accuracy and/or would fire more than 1 shot per person they are shooting at. in a real world scenario, a shooter is likely to need multiple 5 round mags in order to shoot 15 people slowing him down and reducing his effectiveness.
Thus, this ban isn't going to save huge numbers of people. You might reach a few dozen. That doesn't compare well to the number of times a high-capacity magazine could potentially save people.
you haven't established high capacity mags ever save anyone. It is well established that high capacity mags are used to kill alot of people though.
No, it isn't. If banning various types of guns only results in the same number of people dying from other weapons, zero lives have been saved. You've just changed how those people were killed, which is an exercise in futility.
again, you are assuming that forcing them to change weapons has no effect on how many people die. If they have a grenade launcher they will kill alot more people than with an assault rifle. If they have knife they will kill alot less people than with an AR. You will never be able to stop crazy or violent people entirely, but by limiting the availability of deadly weapons you can reduce the level of violence they are able to carry out.
If we were to take your argument to it's concussion, then we should legalize all automatic weapons, belt fed weapons, flame throwers, etc. I mean if limiting the weapons isn't helpful, then everyone should just be armed to the teeth right?
But that is not an argument for allowing people to stockpile killing machines designed to gun down lots of people very quicklyThat's not what AR-15s were designed for, but that's a minor point.
AR 15's were designed as an infantry weapon. They also clearly had the civilian market in mind as well, but that doesn't change the fact that the design was a pitch for military use.
In reality, dangerous weapons are only an issue if fewer people die in the absence of those weapons. However, if people just get killed by maniacs driving through crowds instead, then banning those dangerous weapons hasn't saved anyone, and you've taken away people's rights for nothing.
this argument doesn't seem to have much merit. Essentially your argument is we should do nothing to attempt to prevent people from getting deadly weapons because they will just get them anyway. So the extension of that argument is that we should legalize all weapons. Grenade launchers and tactical nuclear weapons for all I guess.
-->
@Greyparrot
Just curious, how many American mass shootings with an ar-15 happened in your lifetime?
not sure. there have been about 2,331 mass shootings since 2013. The sources that do show a breakdown by weapon use the much more restrictive definition (requiring at least 4 people to have died instead of 4 people having been shot). Which to me is the definition of a mass killing, not mass shooting.
So unfortunately I can't seem to find those numbers. the numbers using the restrictive definition say about 10% of mass shootings used an assault rifle. If that holds true using the better definition of mass shooting (which i have no evidence that it does), then it would be about 200 mass shootings with ARs in the last 7 years. which again i do not know that for sure. How many were done with an AR-15 specifically, no idea. but since my objection to assault rifles is not limited to that one model of gun, i'm not sure how it would be relevant.
-->
@ILikePie5
man, you are really bringing the lies today.... I specifically said I am not talking about banning all guns. How did you take that and somehow read the exact opposite?Nice dodge. Why is the issue about ARs when Handguns kill more people? Logically you should be talking about banning handguns no?
again, you are attempting to misdirect. I am talking about assault weapons. I never said handguns need to be banned. They need much better regulation though.
Logically according to you it would stop killing right?
it would, yes. but i understand that people also need to be able to defend themselves. So if we can get better results with regulation, then that is the better option.
ARs have been used in hundreds, if not thousands, of mass shootings.You’re actually high lmao
there have been over 2300 mass shootings in the last 7 years in america. I can't guarentee how many have been ARs though. I couldn't find stats for it. if you extrapolate that back to the 80's, then hundreds is a pretty good bet. Thousands is possible.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Which to me is the definition of a mass killing, not mass shooting,
Guess there is no difference.