Explain the Focus on AR-15s and Mass Shootings

The rate of gun death/injury among children is spiking UP.

I've posted data on that.

 

You know, it is SO boring to here people making these macho bullshit statements as a way of dodging issues that are serious.

I have not once threatened your ammo dump of a house.

 

so lets see-Rhode Island didn't just make it a felony to possess legally purchased normal capacity magazines. NJ does't ban anything over 10 rounds. California doesn't ban a list of firearms including 3000 dollar Olympic target pistols? Beta O'Dork didn't squeal about confiscating AR 15s-a sentiment Diane Feinswine brayed about after the Clinton gun ban was passed. Just go back and read your comments about gun owners. Does anyone even remotely doubt that if you were in charge, gun ownership wouldn't be severely curtailed?

 

You need to take a step beyond whining about your guns.

I don't know that there is even one person actively posting on this thread in the last couple of days that wants to take your guns.

You're just desperate for excuses for ignoring the problem.

 

yeah mainly suicides and felonious teens shooting other felonious teens. Many gangs (something I know about, I was on the prosecution team of the first federal carjacking case brought in the midwest-and two of the mopes were 14 year old kids who admitted the only reason they helped in a car jacking was that the gun they had only had one shell and that wasn't enough to do a drive by)use younger mopes to do crimes of violence specifically due to juvenile court records being sealed and often more lenient treatment of criminals under the age of 1

 

No, it's not. 10 U.S. Code § 246 is still in effect. You can look it up yourself.

Here, I'll do it for you:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—

1. the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
2. the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

Oh several said ban them all

and all I have to do is look at all the comments about "gun fetishists" gun huggers etc to know that if you all were in charge, guns would be banned

 

So, you're opting out of the discussion and resorting to disgusting ad hom.

Goodbye

 

you have missed the point entirely, as i expected you would. you are still concentrating on means instead of cause. of course we don't make guns safer. their very purpose is not "safe". it is, however, necessary. guns exist whether you like it or not. they are used by criminals, tyrants and charlatans to the detriment of upstanding citizens every day. useless restrictions that remove firearms from the hands of the law abiding will not change this one bit. as you have said, much has been done to make vehicles safer, but no amount of technology or good intentions will render that vehicle incapable of causing death and destruction in the hands of someone intent on creating havoc. what is needed is, as i said, to concentrate on the causes of violence, not simply the means by which that violence is carried out.

 

Thank you.

It's not about slaughtering children, and the fact that you would even say that is highly offensive!! It's about our personal, individual freedoms to live our lives as we see fit, to defend ourselves if need be, to protect our families, friends, even total strangers. School shootings get a lot of attention, look at this one- 6 people killed, just 3 children, and here we are, weeks later still talking about it. It's a school, the shooter was trans, and used an 'assault weapon' (though the video I saw and the closeup of the weapon looked like a 9mm rifle to me, but that is not at all certain), so it ticks boxes, especially those of the press, and those with a 'ban assault weapons' agenda.

FFS, it was one of the first things our 'esteemed' President had to say about it! When he said she/he (I'm never sure) used 2 AK-47s, which was completely wrong.

But the right to keep and bear arms is a birthright of every human on this planet. Governments can, have, and in many cases still do violate that basic right, but it doesn't change the fact it exists.

 

No it wouldn't.

 

How about BOTH

 

I think you mean Matthew 25:34-46. I find it amusing that passage immediately follows Mathew 25:14-30, yet the message in the verses 14-30 passage is never included for context when quoting verses 34-46.

There is a difference between charity and enabling irresponsible behavior. We are to help those in need. Not take measures to ensure they will remain in need indefinitely. Those who benefit from charity have responsibility to leverage that charity to become self sufficient and in turn help others. They aren’t to remain dependent on others when they have abilities to sustain themselves.

 

How is that possible? We even raised the age of legal purchase!

What do you think is causing that spike? More states requiring private sale background checks? More states implementing assault weapons bans/regulations? Maybe the uptick in prohibition of normal capacity magazines?

Or could it be related to some things ya’ll say are strawman arguments in relation to firearm violence? Things like the drug trade? Actual studies of the issue indicate the drug trade IS relevant to the firearm violence question.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263777

 

let me give a you a sanitized version of my response.

The deaths in the school shootings are minimal. I know...I know...you desperately want the emotional appeal...bu...buh...but dont you CARE about the chirruns?

You dont care about 'the children'. The are nothing more than a prop for your cause. Even the sources you people love to cite lists 6000+ 'children' dead from gun violence....but you dont give a care about them...you only care about the 'children' lost in a school shooting. 3 of the THREE THOUSAND 'child' deaths so far this year. 21 of the SIX THOUSAND 'child' deaths in 2022. 4 of the SIX THOUSAND deaths from 2021. ZERO of the approx 6000 'child' deaths in 202. ZERO of the SIX THOUSAND 'child deaths in 2019. 27 of the SIX THOUSAND child deaths in 2018. ZERO of the FOUR THOUSAND child deaths in 2017 and ZERO of the FOUR THOUSAND child deaths in 2016.

Lets tally that up. You are here in a pretense of 'care' over 55 of the 41,000 'child deaths' in the last 6 years...but you dont give care about the 40,945 child deaths because...why...they are mostly black? Mostly gang related? Suicide related? Mostly criminals that dont buy weapons and virtually ALL of them were killed by means that had NOTHING to do with an AR?

Oh...and BTW...WHILE you are offering your pretense of care over 55 dead children over 6 years, you couldnt even BEGIN to care about the 36,000 dead due to accidents...most of them automobile related.

BTW...even MOST of the 55 child deaths you pretend to care about were killed using illegally obtained NON AR15 related firearms.
You dont 'care'. At all.

 

I applaud you for finally asking about more than "how can we ban guns".

if you look at the chart you listed you will also see a correlating increase in deaths due to "drug overdose and poisoning". It would not be unreasonable to assume that those increases have to do with the general state of lawlessness created by the defund the police groups, the anti-prosecution of violent offenders movement by the Soros funded DAs, and a general sense of despair from the idiotic shut down policies in response to COVID.

 

It doesn't matter does it? That's not a question.

 

Edison went 42 times before he succeeded with the light bulb.

 

so your answer is to keep doing the same thing over and over again, hoping that the next step will be a magic bullet. we aren't inventing anything here, we're just trying to get back to a state where mass shootings are uncommon. we were there once and the guns were there right along with us. so obviously it isn't the guns. thanks for playing, try again when you have something to actually add.

 

So its not us or guns. Got it.

 

Touché. Ouch!

 

He did not keep using the same materials and methods with each attempt.

 

Geez...you people love to make stupid...stupid...stupid comments.

Let me ask you this. ASSUMING you actually have a penis...would you willfully chop it off to prevent rape? I mean...you are a man, presumably (no evidence of that but you DO claim it,,,,so I'll take you at your word) you have a penis...and most of the 200,000+ rapes occur in the US are perpetrated by people with a penis...so...by your logic...THAT should be your next step...chop off your dick to stop the rapes from occurring.

Right?

Whats wrong with you...dont you CARE about women? Dont you CARE about preventing rapes?

Or would you reject that solution (again...assuming you actually have a penis) because even though most rapes involve people with a penis, YOU are not (presumably) a perpetrator of rape?

So...its not 'you' OR the penis?

Well then HOW can we ever stop rapes from occurring if you arent willing to volunteer to chop off your penis...again...assuming you actually had one?

 

As good as the idea of a 'payback' does sound, it's how you start a gang war. I mean it metaphorically in this case, but that word could eventually become obsolete, as payback leads to payback leads to payback.

Pretty soon nobody even remembers how it started, just that revenge is needed. That is the SOP of many banana republics, and has caused many a Civil War.

Which is why this DA, and this pathetic charge cannot be allowed to succeed. Step One is getting any trial (if it happens, but hopefully a sane Judge will put a stop to this whole thing before it gets to that point) to Staten Island, the one and only place in NYC where it's even hypothetically possible for Trump to get a fair trial. I know this because I lived there for many years.

 

So, you think people should be required by law to wear seatbelts? I do not. The very idea is totally at odds with the idea of a nation of free persons.

Now, I wear my seatbelt pretty much every single time I am in a car. Because I choose to. But I reserve the right to refuse not to, if for no other reason than the only person I'm putting in even a tiny amount of danger, as was demonstrated in the post you replied to, but also because it's none of anybody's business.

You do not seem to like the idea of freedom very much. You want to ban people from owning the tools to defend themselves, and in some cases, to feed themselves. You think people should wear seatbelts because you said so. What other personal freedoms would you like to invade? You want to tell me that me and my wife are not allowed to be swingers? Jump out of a perfectly good airplane? For that matter, how about flying a personal airplane in the first place, it is much more dangerous than riding in the back of a tubeliner after all.

How far are you willing to invade on people's right to be left the f alone to live their lives as they see fit?