Explain the Focus on AR-15s and Mass Shootings

Wow...it's going right over your head. I've wasted enough time trying to explain, what I thought was, a simple concept. Yikes.

 

Ok, great. Four pages in and not one actual reason, backed up by data, to focus on AR-15s other than it's scary.
I knew some people were misinformed but didn't think it was quite this bad. My favorite reasons have to be these three:
We don't care about drug dealers or gang members getting killed nor do we care about the people taking drugs.
They are useless despite the fact that it doesn't matter, nor that thousands of people hunt with them or use them for sport.
People take pictures with them.

I will give props to Sirius Black for answering the question about why all the attention goes to the very few mass shootings and the other 99% are skipped over: "victums are usualln unarmed". Using that logic, I have to ask you why you would also want to make more gun free zones?

 

Lack of understanding and a dependency on "what they are told to think" no matter how stupid it is

 

Thats the propaganda the DNC use to bait their base with. See how well it works!

 

Who said they were useless?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

If you think that eliminating the world's supply of "assault weapons" will stop school mass killings, I'm afraid that you're ignoring 2 critical facts

1. There are over 60 countries in the world that have homicide rates than the US and they all prohibit all private gun ownership including "assault weapons" .
If stricter gun control laws worked to control human behavior then they should work everywhere, not just in a handful of smaller, older and very different "developed"(2) countries that happen to have much more affordable and accessible mental health care systems.

2. The deadliest school mass killing in America's history(3) was not done with an "assault weapon" or any type of firearm at all. It was done with another crude WMD, more specifically, a home made bomb that killed 44 people. That's more people killed in any school shooting on record and proof that a determined killer will find a way to kill a large number of people with or without an "assault weapon".

Thanks,



(1). "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings


(2). "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only...political thinking,with fewer guns per capita.

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so." CONTINUED


(3) "The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre"

"Ninety years ago, a school in Bath, Michigan was rigged with explosives in a brutal act that stunned the town"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...chool-massacre-180963355/#KSipwm4IUrIbB9uc.99

EXCERPTS "In the end 44 people died, 38 of them students. It wasn’t the first bombing in the country’s history—at least eight were killed during the Haymarket Square rally in Chicago in 1886, and 30 when a bomb exploded in Manhattan in 1920. But none had been so deadly as this, or affected so many children."CONTINUED

 

Spoken like a layman. So you're saying a semi auto 223cal 55gr hollow point bullet with a 20 round clip will do more damage to a human than a semi auto 40cal handgun 155gr XTP bullet with a 14 round clip?

You are very wrong

 

ignorance of weapons tends to be the stock in trade of anti gunners. Their motivation comes not from understanding weapons but rather their assumption concerning the political views of gun owners

 

Did somebody just write "clip" instead of "magazine"....?

Must be a typo...

 

Clearly, then again, I blame their instructors more than their reluctance to study the facts

 

what sort of instructors do anti gun advocates have?

1) experts on how to address a non-binary nutcase

2) pretend veterinarians for kids who identify as cats

3) those who watched RAMBO and from that derive their "knowledge" of weapons

4) those who think WOKE is a valid substitute for knowledge

 

I have for 55 years called them a clip, long before the left used the term to look educated in firearms My idea of a magazine was penthouse

 

no worries-when I first got involved in table tennis, somewhat serious players called the game TABLE TENNIS and were faux pissed off when people called it ping pong (which was a trademark for the game that a company had-table tennis was used so that company's monopoly could be avoided). Top players don't care. Same with clips.

 

I don't take offence to it. I have used both, and still have the refillable clips to quick fill the M14 mag

 

People fear things they can't control, and that can affect people like them, especially their own kids.

So black on black violence, gang violence, and drug violence is seen as somebody else's issue. It's bad, but not something that's going to affect people who are not in those circles, so many people are less worried about it.

Having no control in the situation is another big thing. Car accidents are far more likely to kill you than plane crashes, but people worry more about plane crashes because it feels completely out of their control. For a gun enthusiast, more control would come from being armed themselves. But for somebody who is not, that doesn't seem like a good option. Control is also an issue for things like fentanyl and suicide - the person made the choice to put themselves at risk of death, so it is seen as less scary definitely, and less bad probably.

The special dislike for the AR is multi-pronged, I think. First, it is believed by them to be able to rack up a higher body count before victims can escape. Similar argument would be used in saying guns are more dangerous than knives - it's far harder to kill 30 people with a knife than a semi-automatic weapon with a big magazine. Second, it allows them to outgun some of the first responders, giving them more time to kill. Third, it's not seen as having a "legit use" such as hunting.

 

Thats your view of the weapon, and it's concerning from where I sit! Everyone I know with one, is either varmint hunting and or fun, none of them sit around a campfire or forum claiming how many people their firearms can kill

 

Because that's what they have been propagandized to think! Clearly they have no real-world experience beyond that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Well, I'm not an expert on that subject, but the question of the OP was why do people focus on assault style weapons like the AR. That's one reason why. I have seen people who claim to be experts on here assert it is false, but I don't recall the argument. Intuitively speaking, it really does seem like they would be better than alternatives for racking up a high body count, excluding a well-placed huge bomb, I guess, but that requires expertise crazy people usually lack.

 

Thank you. That was a well thought out response. I wouldn't call it a good reason to ban something but it's certainly a reason to be afraid. Ignorance isn't always bliss I suppose.

 

people who claim this about AR 15s are ignorant about various environments. In some cases a handgun is a far more deadly weapon than an AR 15. in some environments, a shotgun is and in some environments a bolt action heavy caliber rifle with a well made scope is the deadliest of all. Have you ever figured that if someone is willing to shoot "first responders" they are not going to be disarmed by a gun law?

 

Well in an urban setting, I don't see much use for any long gun! A handgun is far more discrete and distancing is not really and issue.. As for the rural area's, distance and quick shots in cases like coyote, jack rabbits and other varmints is essential qualities in a long gun. None of these critters stand still for the shooter, and accurate 100yrd shots on a critter running evasively is never an easy task

 

It takes a fair amount of time to teach someone to hit even man sized targets under stress with a handgun. An AR 15-especially one in say 9mm where the blast indoors isn't nearly as brutal, is much easier.

 

You may not recall, but I have been undecided on this issue. I have been skeptical of gun laws for the same reason I have been against drug laws.

We're talking about classrooms, I think. Maybe for cramped quarters, close range, a semi-automatic pistol would do just as well? Less unwieldy, harder to aim mitigated by distance, but fewer rounds, so maybe both. AR for the hall, pistol for entering a new close quarters area.

 

so are you saying you oppose gun free zones?

 

well its easy to carry two or three 17 round glock pistols-far easier than sneaking around with an AR 15. and you can buy 33 round magazines for the Glock and its still fairly concealable under a jacket. and at close range-easier to deploy against unarmed victims. in close quarters, many of us have training on how to take a rifle away from someone, Its harder to do that with a handgun. Much harder if the person has training