Explain the Focus on AR-15s and Mass Shootings

The impact on our society, the uses these guns are put to, the nature of those who buy these guns, etc., etc. - these are NOT factors that are informed by owning such a gun.

Your argument is like saying someone doesn't know squat about foreign relations, because they haven't fought in a war.

 

so, you want to ban something you don’t understand. You don’t know one from another, or that they’re used in a very small % of shootings. That makes sense to you?

 

facts

1) AR 15s are used in less murders than beatings or knives and many times less murders than handguns
2) AR 15s are almost never used in other violent crimes such as forcible rape or armed robbery due to the difficulty in concealing them
3) AR 15s are far more militia useful than most handguns
4) AR 15s are more likely purchased for sporting purposes compared to handguns-which are usually most likely bought for defensive reasons

SO banning them is almost guaranteed not to do much if anything in saving lives. Now Golem has admitted he wants to ban all guns but for the other AR 15 haters out there-tell us why you want to ban this rifle and not handguns (yet)

 

it is obvious from the posts on this board, that those who want to ban AR 15s either don't understand them, or do but lie about them. Not one of them has come up with even remotely a valid argument for banning them.

 

Seriously... why do you think that's even a rational argument? So what! We save the lives we can save. If you have a proposal to save lives in beatings, make your proposal. In the mean time, we save the lives we can save from AR-15s and similar assault weapons. And we don't save the ones we can't. Banning the sale of AR-15s is not going to save anybody from dying from a heart attack. But it CAN save some of the lives that would otherwise be lost to AR-15s. It has in the countries where they have been banned. So there is no reason to think that it would be any different here.

I don't consider you one of the more serious or informed posters here. But I thought I'd give you one opportunity to explain yourself. Why make these arguments that are such obvious strawman. Let's see if you are capable of making a serious argument. Which would require that you read and understand this post. So you better read it again....

 

it's a losing argument for the gun banners. If you care about saving innocent lives-your only honest approach is to go after the things that take the most innocent life. When you go after AR 15s, you cannot claim your primary goal is saving lives.

 

Wrong! You go after EVERYTHING that saves innocent lives. At least everything you CAN go after. Some will focus on heart disease, others in falling from stairs, yet others from airplane accidents..... and on and on...

If you want to see me going after heart disease open one of my threads about Obamacare. If you want to see me going after Covid, see any of the threads on THAT topic.....

But to believe that you either go after EVERYTHING or you should go after NOTHING, is the worst case of binary thinking. Not to mention childish beyond belief.

Is that all you got? I'm still hoping for a serious response. So WHAT if we don't mention lives lost to beatings.. or heart attack...or car accidents... in a thread about guns?

 

you aren't being honest with your claims. If saving lives is your goal, focusing on a gun that is used in less than one percent of the murders is quite disingenuous

 

No, I'm saying that using an assault rifle doesn't give you special knowledge.

 

it’s just so funny how many uninformed people could be so adamant about something, with a wild guess for what they want to accomplish.

prohibitionists…

 

If you don’t know how it works how can you explain what the problem is? It only takes using one to see how many things it does well, like any piece of equipment.

 

There you go again. First of all, NOBODY is focusing on ANY gun. We have talked about ALL assault weapons.

But even we were.... so what? If banning the sale of ONE gun saves lives, we save lives.

Yes! Saving lives IS the goal. And we can walk and chew gum at the same time. The sale of ALL assault weapons need to be banned. If that may prevent one percent of gun deaths, that would be a huge success.

In any case, you are trying to change the subject (this nonsense you made up about focusing on one gun) tells me that you didn't actually have an answer. If you ever think of one, feel free to jump in. I leave you with the question: So WHAT if we can't stop "most" deaths? If we can prevent SOME of the deaths that are lost...even some of those that are lost to school shootings alone... that is big progress. But if your argument is that it doesn't save the life of people who are beaten to death... you can keep it to yourself. Not interested...

 

I think we know why the hard core anti gun movement wants to ban AR 15s. this movement is a wing of the collectivist authoritarian movement and they want to get rid of one of the most effective currently legal civilian weapons that are useful in a SHTF scenario. They also realize that it is MORE Likely that those who own these firearms are less likely to be socialists, progressives, liberals or Democrats than those who may own a handgun for self defense in an urban environment. It essentially is a blatant attack on a culture and a mindset rather than an ignorant but good faith attempt to decrease crime. WE know crime control is not the point of this jihad against the most particularly useful militia weapon available after the blatantly unconstitutional Hughes Amendment was spitefully and improperly attached to the FAOPA of 1986

 

I reject your bogus argument completely. using the AR 15 as a starting point for the banning of guns is hardly rational IF saving lives is the goal. As I explained above, the attacks on AR 15 ownership has nothing to do with saving lives and we all know it. Your argument doesn't even pass the smell test. Why not be honest

 

…

 

Your deliberate mis-characterizations and false metrics aside...
Oh wait... take those away and you;re left with nothing.

 

why do you call things that aren't assault rifles-"assault rifles"

 

Apparently he's a little low on "special knowledge".

 

And yet...the people pushing to ban ARs LITERALLY know nothing about them, their utility, their value their capacity, their characteristics, their diversity...nothing.

"Hey Kermit! Elmo says ARs are BAD...they told me so!"

 

it is almost a given-the more someone wants to ban these rifles, the less they know about them. It's like a flock of lobotomized parrots squawking what some dear leader has told them

 

That is totally wrong.

 

I deny your unsupported claim. Gun banners tend to want to ban the things they figure will annoy pro gun advocates the most., that is what motivates gun banners. that is why they don't go after handguns-too many rich elites who fund gun banners own handguns

 

Sorry but you don't get to determine motive for anyone but yourself.

 

Sorry I do that all the time and what upsets the anti gunners is I almost never miss, you all make it easy for me when your claim it is about crime control and yet all your posts are about bashing lawful gun owners and trying to ban guns rarely used in crime. Suggestion-if you want to make your facade look more believable, at least pretend you hate violent felons and nut cases like that gender confused twit who attacked a Christian school, more than you hate us lawful gun owners

 

Suppose a law is enacted that results in a 20% decrease in gun crime but makes it 20% harder for people to get a gun, would you be for or against this?