Democrat gun control destroyed.

[Catsnmeters]

Why would I?

Don't tell me you're one of those idiots who thinks that everyone who defends their rights is a Trump supporter.

Certainly not but their are a lot of trumpers who will gladly vote for Trump despite his anti 2nd amendment rhetoric.

If you're not one of those that's great.

And I don't know who I am voting for in 2024 but I can tell you it will NOT be anyone that is a current member of the corrupt duopoly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Facts, like these
Eor every person who uses a gun in self-defense, the research finds, nearly six people use a gun to commit a crime.

Even if true
So what?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The FAWB resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths, and number of gun
injuries. We estimate that the FAWB prevented 11 public mass shootings during the decade the ban was in place. A continuation
of the FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1139 people
You see that? That is called "evidence", or perhaps documentation. We can put that in the column "advantages to banning assault weapons".

No.
It's an opinion , disconnected from reality.

-The enactment of the 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce access to 'assault weapons'.
-The expiry of the 1994 AWB did not increase access to 'assault weapons'.
As such the 1994 AWB could not have had the effects claimed, above, and elsewhere.

Proof:

 

[2aguy]

Facts, like these

Eor every person who uses a gun in self-defense, the research finds, nearly six people use a gun to commit a crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/14/for-every-gun-used-in-self-defense-six-more-are-used-to-commit-a-crime/

the percentage of people who told Kleck they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens.

How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?

Many gun owners say the primary reason they own a firearm is self-defense. But for years, experts have been starkly divided over how often people actually use guns for this purpose.

www.npr.org

. It’s odd to cite hunting and home defense as reasons to keep selling a rifle that’s not particularly well suited, and definitely not necessary, for either. Bolt-action rifles and shotguns can also be used for hunting and home defense. Unfortunately, those guns aren’t particularly lucrative for gunmakers. The lobby’s fervent defense of military-style semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 seems motivated primarily by a desire to protect the profits in the rapidly growing “modern sporting rifle” segment of the industry.

The NRA Claims the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

According to Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, an AR-15 rifle was believed to be used in a school shooting Wednesday at Marjory Stoneman Douglas...

slate.com

Wow....the stupid is strong with you....

According to the Centers for Disease Control, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year for self defense.....1.5 million times a year if you use the number from the Department of Justice.....those are people who are the victims of crime, who stop the rape, robbery, murder, beating, stabbing, or mass public shooting..........

Kleck was not involved in their research...he was not involved in the other 19 studies on gun self defense.....

Lives saved....based on research? By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct



that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—

==============

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)


2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

Clinton's study by the DOJ....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.



n the third column of Table 6.2, we apply the Kleck and Gertz (1995) criteria for "genuine" DGUs (type A), leaving us with just 19 respondents. They represent 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known Kleck and Gertz estimate of 2.5 million, shown in the last

While ours is smaller, it is staistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. to the when we include the multiple DGUs victim. defensive reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 milli

While ours is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference petrator; in most cases (69 percent), the is due to sampling error. Note that when we include the multiple DGUs reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 million DGUs.
----

As shown in Table 6.6, the defender fired his or her gun in 27 percent of these incidents (combined "fire warning shots" and "fire at perpetrator" percentages, though some respondents reported firing both warning shots and airning at the perpetrator). Forty percent of these were "warning shots," and about a third were aimed at the perpetrator but missed. The perpetrator was wounded by the crime victim in eight percent of all DGUs. In nine percent of DGUs the victim captured and held the perpetrator at gunpoint until the police could arrive.

Obama's study...

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 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).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press

 

[2aguy]

Facts, like these

Eor every person who uses a gun in self-defense, the research finds, nearly six people use a gun to commit a crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/14/for-every-gun-used-in-self-defense-six-more-are-used-to-commit-a-crime/

the percentage of people who told Kleck they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens.

How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?

Many gun owners say the primary reason they own a firearm is self-defense. But for years, experts have been starkly divided over how often people actually use guns for this purpose.

www.npr.org

. It’s odd to cite hunting and home defense as reasons to keep selling a rifle that’s not particularly well suited, and definitely not necessary, for either. Bolt-action rifles and shotguns can also be used for hunting and home defense. Unfortunately, those guns aren’t particularly lucrative for gunmakers. The lobby’s fervent defense of military-style semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 seems motivated primarily by a desire to protect the profits in the rapidly growing “modern sporting rifle” segment of the industry.

The NRA Claims the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

According to Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, an AR-15 rifle was believed to be used in a school shooting Wednesday at Marjory Stoneman Douglas...

slate.com

Let's watch an expert explain to your dumb ass why the AR-15 is a valid tool for self defense...

 

[M14 Shooter]

The argument is simple. Does the legalization of assault weapons provide more benefits to society than the harm caused by them? That is the argument and I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, even attempt to make that argument.

Oooh...
You aren't aware of the fact these means-end tests have been taken off the table.
Tsk tsk,


In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
 Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[2aguy]

Bad luck for the USA. Your weapon fetishism seems to be meanwhile an irrational psychological desease of the masses. Your god little dead peaces of metal flying through the air supporting the unfreedom of 24/7-idiots.

For you this time........

You are German?

Your country murdered between 15-20 million innocent men, women and children in just 6 years.....more people than are murdered with guns in the entire 247 year history of the United States.....

That you would think to comment on this issue is just funny.........

Europe...

In the 1920s, they began the process of registering guns....to make their people safer. That was the lie. by the mid 1930s, the socialists in Germany began the process of banning and confiscating guns, and the same for the countries they defeated......

By 1939, the German socialists began to murder 15 million - 20 million people....in 6 years.....men, women and over 1 million children.

6 years, 15 million- 20 million murdered citizens..not war dead, innocent people rounded up and murdered in camps and forests....

15 million in 6 years.

In the United States, gun murder for our entire 247 year history?

Around 2,470,000

Europe.... 15-20 million in 6 years.

U.S..... 2,470,000 in 247 years.

Now the math part...get out your pencil....

How many hundreds of years will it take the U.S. to catch up with the number of Europeans murdered by their governments.....

Show your work.

=======..

 

[2aguy]

Reading comprehension not your strong point I see. From your initial link,

It has since been refuted by several studies, including one by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, indicating Americans use guns for self-defense 2.5 million times annually.

The Fact that Kleck has not been refuted.......just does not compute with you assholes......because the other 19 studies on gun self defense support Kleck's findings...you idiot...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)


2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

Clinton's study by the DOJ....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.



n the third column of Table 6.2, we apply the Kleck and Gertz (1995) criteria for "genuine" DGUs (type A), leaving us with just 19 respondents. They represent 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known Kleck and Gertz estimate of 2.5 million, shown in the last

While ours is smaller, it is staistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. to the when we include the multiple DGUs victim. defensive reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 milli

While ours is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference petrator; in most cases (69 percent), the is due to sampling error. Note that when we include the multiple DGUs reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 million DGUs.
----

As shown in Table 6.6, the defender fired his or her gun in 27 percent of these incidents (combined "fire warning shots" and "fire at perpetrator" percentages, though some respondents reported firing both warning shots and airning at the perpetrator). Forty percent of these were "warning shots," and about a third were aimed at the perpetrator but missed. The perpetrator was wounded by the crime victim in eight percent of all DGUs. In nine percent of DGUs the victim captured and held the perpetrator at gunpoint until the police could arrive.

Obama's study...

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 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).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press

 

[Failzero]

So don't ban it - throw it in a scrap press or send it to the Ukraine. In your country is no war.

Thousands of American Citizens Legally own Class 3 / NFA Assault Weapons

 

[2aguy]

Wow, what a stunningly erudite rebuttal.

What a damn dumbass. Sorry, I am going to need a little more than the word of a dumbass. Maybe you could begin by demonstrating the advantages of owning an assault weapon. I mean like all you gun nuts continue to proclaim, an assault weapon is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. What does society lose by banning them?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349501042_Gun_Control_Policy_to_Prevent_Public_Mass_Shootings_Regression_Lines_of_Discontinuety_Study_Preprint

The FAWB resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths, and number of gun
injuries. We estimate that the FAWB prevented 11 public mass shootings during the decade the ban was in place. A continuation
of the FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1139 people

You see that? That is called "evidence", or perhaps documentation. We can put that in the column "advantages to banning assault weapons".

That is a lie.......

• The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
  
  
  
  1. It is Premature to Make Definitive Assessments of the Ban’s Impact on Gun Crime
  2. • Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects
     
     
     • Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf




when one takes into account data from the years 1994 to 2003 — when the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act was effective.


During this period, the National Institute of Justice, along with University of Pennsylvania criminologist Dan Woods, found that the United States “cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence … there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

John Lott of The Wall Street Journal, who mentions the study in his 2013 piece on crime, alludes to a 5.7 per 100,000 murder rate prior to the ban expiring — in conjunction with the fact that the murder rate fell to 4.7 per 100,000, in 2011.
Similarly, a 2018 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found zero substantiation that “assault weapons bans” will lower “the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

Most of all, the Bloomberg-funded research “did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings after controlling for the effects of bans on large-capacity magazines.”
Biden’s nonsensical position on banning assault weapons

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's watch an expert explain to your dumb ass why the AR-15 is a valid tool for self defense...

You argue against a false premise.
The constitution does not protect the right to own and use just the firearms best suited for the legal purposes someone might have to a fireamre, it protects ALL "bearable arms" - all firearms in common use, or commonly chosen for use, for those purposes.

 

[2aguy]

What is so damn hard about working on the calculus that I presented? Show me that the advantages of the legal ownership of assault weapons outweigh the cost to society that legal status presents. It ain't that damn hard. Or it is really damn hard, you can't make the argument, and therefore you attempt to spin and turn and counter with nothing but bullshit and lies.

What makes me an authority? I am informed. I mean who the hell are you to tell me that I can't have a flame thrower as my weapon of self defense? Or hell, maybe I want a flare gun firing a 26.5mm projectile, why can't I have one?

But no, an AR-15 is not "just another semi-automatic weapon". The muzzle velocity can reach 3,000 fps. An SKS might get to 1,154 fps. Do you even know the definition of force? Have you ever even been in a Physics class?

And no, I don't want to debate on rather an assault rifle is suitable for self-defense. I personally think it is a stupid ass choice. And for hunting, well for the love of God, if someone is in the woods hunting with an assault rifle please let me know, so I can stay the hell out of those woods. But the argument is not germane to the question at hand.

Again, it is really damn simple. Those that support the legal status of assault rifles need to step up and demonstrate that the legal status affords more benefits to society than costs. The fact that no one even attempts to make that argument tells me all I need to know. I am here to ask you, if it is your grandkids sitting in that classroom when the deranged shooter shows up would you rather that shooter have a standard semi-automatic weapon or an AR-15? If it is an AR-15 then survivability drops by half. Choose carefully.

And back to the op. Funny, we only see Amy Swearer's opening statements. We don't see any of the questions from the committee. Did you know she was charged with perjury? I mean you can sense a problem when you look at the deranged look in her eyes. Why is it that you gun nuts, and especially you Trumptards, can't read non-verbal clues?

The whole fight to keep assault weapons legal is nothing more than protecting the profits of the gun manufacturers. The assault rifle is their profit maker. Needle dick suckers pay big bucks for a cheap ass gun that looks bad ass. And at the first sign of legislation against those pea-shooters, well it is Katy bar the door, they horde up on the damn things. SUCKERS. Seriously, suckers.

The NRA used to be a legit organization, but that was way back in the day when they sponsored my rifle team, had me teach gun safety at schools throughout the state, and actually supported strict gun control. Now they are a totally corrupt organization that is little more than a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers, who couldn't give two shits about the deaths from mass shootings and are more concerned about profits. Thousands of people, from my own father to George Bush Jr., have canceled their memberships because of this change.

I mean here is the deal, short and sweet. Address the question at hand, does the legal status of assault rifles provide a greater benefit to society than the cost it in entails, or STFU.

You are an idiot.......

It isn't the gun in a mass public shooting, you idiot........

Assault weapon ban, 1994-2004.......mass public shootings listed........you idiot.......notice how the ban had no effect......

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation


2022...12

2021...6

2020....2

2019....10

2018... 12

2017: 11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

Cars killed over 39,000 people in 2019...



Total number of people killed in mass public shootings by year...


2022....74
2021...43
2020....5
2019....73
2018.....93
2017........117
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

 

[2aguy]

What is so damn hard about working on the calculus that I presented? Show me that the advantages of the legal ownership of assault weapons outweigh the cost to society that legal status presents. It ain't that damn hard. Or it is really damn hard, you can't make the argument, and therefore you attempt to spin and turn and counter with nothing but bullshit and lies.

What makes me an authority? I am informed. I mean who the hell are you to tell me that I can't have a flame thrower as my weapon of self defense? Or hell, maybe I want a flare gun firing a 26.5mm projectile, why can't I have one?

But no, an AR-15 is not "just another semi-automatic weapon". The muzzle velocity can reach 3,000 fps. An SKS might get to 1,154 fps. Do you even know the definition of force? Have you ever even been in a Physics class?

And no, I don't want to debate on rather an assault rifle is suitable for self-defense. I personally think it is a stupid ass choice. And for hunting, well for the love of God, if someone is in the woods hunting with an assault rifle please let me know, so I can stay the hell out of those woods. But the argument is not germane to the question at hand.

Again, it is really damn simple. Those that support the legal status of assault rifles need to step up and demonstrate that the legal status affords more benefits to society than costs. The fact that no one even attempts to make that argument tells me all I need to know. I am here to ask you, if it is your grandkids sitting in that classroom when the deranged shooter shows up would you rather that shooter have a standard semi-automatic weapon or an AR-15? If it is an AR-15 then survivability drops by half. Choose carefully.

And back to the op. Funny, we only see Amy Swearer's opening statements. We don't see any of the questions from the committee. Did you know she was charged with perjury? I mean you can sense a problem when you look at the deranged look in her eyes. Why is it that you gun nuts, and especially you Trumptards, can't read non-verbal clues?

The whole fight to keep assault weapons legal is nothing more than protecting the profits of the gun manufacturers. The assault rifle is their profit maker. Needle dick suckers pay big bucks for a cheap ass gun that looks bad ass. And at the first sign of legislation against those pea-shooters, well it is Katy bar the door, they horde up on the damn things. SUCKERS. Seriously, suckers.

The NRA used to be a legit organization, but that was way back in the day when they sponsored my rifle team, had me teach gun safety at schools throughout the state, and actually supported strict gun control. Now they are a totally corrupt organization that is little more than a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers, who couldn't give two shits about the deaths from mass shootings and are more concerned about profits. Thousands of people, from my own father to George Bush Jr., have canceled their memberships because of this change.

I mean here is the deal, short and sweet. Address the question at hand, does the legal status of assault rifles provide a greater benefit to society than the cost it in entails, or STFU.

Those that support the legal status of assault rifles need to step up and demonstrate that the legal status affords more benefits to society than costs.

No, actually, we don't.....Rights don't work that way, you doofus..........

 

[2aguy]

What is so damn hard about working on the calculus that I presented? Show me that the advantages of the legal ownership of assault weapons outweigh the cost to society that legal status presents. It ain't that damn hard. Or it is really damn hard, you can't make the argument, and therefore you attempt to spin and turn and counter with nothing but bullshit and lies.

What makes me an authority? I am informed. I mean who the hell are you to tell me that I can't have a flame thrower as my weapon of self defense? Or hell, maybe I want a flare gun firing a 26.5mm projectile, why can't I have one?

But no, an AR-15 is not "just another semi-automatic weapon". The muzzle velocity can reach 3,000 fps. An SKS might get to 1,154 fps. Do you even know the definition of force? Have you ever even been in a Physics class?

And no, I don't want to debate on rather an assault rifle is suitable for self-defense. I personally think it is a stupid ass choice. And for hunting, well for the love of God, if someone is in the woods hunting with an assault rifle please let me know, so I can stay the hell out of those woods. But the argument is not germane to the question at hand.

Again, it is really damn simple. Those that support the legal status of assault rifles need to step up and demonstrate that the legal status affords more benefits to society than costs. The fact that no one even attempts to make that argument tells me all I need to know. I am here to ask you, if it is your grandkids sitting in that classroom when the deranged shooter shows up would you rather that shooter have a standard semi-automatic weapon or an AR-15? If it is an AR-15 then survivability drops by half. Choose carefully.

And back to the op. Funny, we only see Amy Swearer's opening statements. We don't see any of the questions from the committee. Did you know she was charged with perjury? I mean you can sense a problem when you look at the deranged look in her eyes. Why is it that you gun nuts, and especially you Trumptards, can't read non-verbal clues?

The whole fight to keep assault weapons legal is nothing more than protecting the profits of the gun manufacturers. The assault rifle is their profit maker. Needle dick suckers pay big bucks for a cheap ass gun that looks bad ass. And at the first sign of legislation against those pea-shooters, well it is Katy bar the door, they horde up on the damn things. SUCKERS. Seriously, suckers.

The NRA used to be a legit organization, but that was way back in the day when they sponsored my rifle team, had me teach gun safety at schools throughout the state, and actually supported strict gun control. Now they are a totally corrupt organization that is little more than a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers, who couldn't give two shits about the deaths from mass shootings and are more concerned about profits. Thousands of people, from my own father to George Bush Jr., have canceled their memberships because of this change.

I mean here is the deal, short and sweet. Address the question at hand, does the legal status of assault rifles provide a greater benefit to society than the cost it in entails, or STFU.

With each post you show your ignorance..........Americans use AR-15 to hunt a wide variety of animals, from small rodents to wild pigs.........you dumb ass.....

 

[2aguy]

What is so damn hard about working on the calculus that I presented? Show me that the advantages of the legal ownership of assault weapons outweigh the cost to society that legal status presents. It ain't that damn hard. Or it is really damn hard, you can't make the argument, and therefore you attempt to spin and turn and counter with nothing but bullshit and lies.

What makes me an authority? I am informed. I mean who the hell are you to tell me that I can't have a flame thrower as my weapon of self defense? Or hell, maybe I want a flare gun firing a 26.5mm projectile, why can't I have one?

But no, an AR-15 is not "just another semi-automatic weapon". The muzzle velocity can reach 3,000 fps. An SKS might get to 1,154 fps. Do you even know the definition of force? Have you ever even been in a Physics class?

And no, I don't want to debate on rather an assault rifle is suitable for self-defense. I personally think it is a stupid ass choice. And for hunting, well for the love of God, if someone is in the woods hunting with an assault rifle please let me know, so I can stay the hell out of those woods. But the argument is not germane to the question at hand.

Again, it is really damn simple. Those that support the legal status of assault rifles need to step up and demonstrate that the legal status affords more benefits to society than costs. The fact that no one even attempts to make that argument tells me all I need to know. I am here to ask you, if it is your grandkids sitting in that classroom when the deranged shooter shows up would you rather that shooter have a standard semi-automatic weapon or an AR-15? If it is an AR-15 then survivability drops by half. Choose carefully.

And back to the op. Funny, we only see Amy Swearer's opening statements. We don't see any of the questions from the committee. Did you know she was charged with perjury? I mean you can sense a problem when you look at the deranged look in her eyes. Why is it that you gun nuts, and especially you Trumptards, can't read non-verbal clues?

The whole fight to keep assault weapons legal is nothing more than protecting the profits of the gun manufacturers. The assault rifle is their profit maker. Needle dick suckers pay big bucks for a cheap ass gun that looks bad ass. And at the first sign of legislation against those pea-shooters, well it is Katy bar the door, they horde up on the damn things. SUCKERS. Seriously, suckers.

The NRA used to be a legit organization, but that was way back in the day when they sponsored my rifle team, had me teach gun safety at schools throughout the state, and actually supported strict gun control. Now they are a totally corrupt organization that is little more than a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers, who couldn't give two shits about the deaths from mass shootings and are more concerned about profits. Thousands of people, from my own father to George Bush Jr., have canceled their memberships because of this change.

I mean here is the deal, short and sweet. Address the question at hand, does the legal status of assault rifles provide a greater benefit to society than the cost it in entails, or STFU.

Your ignorance on every aspect of semi-automatic rifles is just stunning........

Most gun crimes, including mass shootings, take place at close range. Dr. Fackler observes that at close range “the 12 gauge shotgun (using either buckshot or a rifled slug) is far more likely to incapacitate than is a .223 rifle. The 12 gauge shotgun is simply a far more powerful weapon.” Martin Fackler, Questions and Comments, 5 WOUND BALLISTIC REV. 5 (Fall 2001). Dr. P.K. Stefanopoulos, trauma surgeon and former career military officer who has written extensively on wound ballistics, states that at distances of less than 10 feet “the shotgun produces the most devastating injuries of all small arms.” P.K. Stefanopoulos, et al., Wound Ballistics of Firearm-Related Injuries—Part 1: Missile Characteristics and Mechanisms of Soft Tissue Wounding, 43 INT. J. ORAL MAXILLOFAC. SURG. 1445, 1453 (2014).
Powerful handgun rounds can cause similar wounding effects to the AR.
------

Research shows that “assault weapons” are less deadly in mass public shootings than handguns. One study examined the relationship between the type of firearm used, wounding characteristics, and probability of death in mass public shootings.


See Babak Sarani, et al., Wounding Patterns Based on Firearm Type in Civilian Public Mass Shootings in the United States, 228 J.
AMER. COLLEGE SURGEONS 228 (March 2019). The researchers studied firearm types and autopsy reports for 232 victims from 23 mass shootings, including high-casualty shootings with “assault weapons” at Orlando and Las Vegas.

The researchers, to their surprise, found that that public shootings with handguns are more lethal than those with rifles because they result in more wounds per victim and more injuries to vital organs. Id. at 228-29, 232-33.


“All of us were shocked,” Dr. Sarani said. “We came to the table with our bias that an assault weapon would be worse.” Carolyn Crist, Handguns more lethal than rifles in mass shootings, Reuters (Dec. 31, 2018).19.


Victims shot with a handgun were almost four times more likely to have three or more wounds compared with those shot with a rifle. Thus “the probability of death is higher for events involving a handgun than a rifle.”


Sarani at 232. Twenty-six percent of victims shot with handguns and 16% shot with shotguns had multiple fatal organ injuries; only 2% of those shot by a rifle had two or more fatal organ injuries. Id. Wounds to the brain and heart, which have
higher fatality rates than gunshots to other organs, were most likely to occur when handguns were used. Id. at 233.

Victims shot with rifles were twice as likely to have a preventable death (if medical care were rendered in time) than those shot with other firearms. Id. at 231.

http://[URL='https://davekopel.org/...and-Trainers-Assoc-amicus-3d-Cir-Delaware.pdf

[/URL]

 

[2aguy]

What is so damn hard about working on the calculus that I presented? Show me that the advantages of the legal ownership of assault weapons outweigh the cost to society that legal status presents. It ain't that damn hard. Or it is really damn hard, you can't make the argument, and therefore you attempt to spin and turn and counter with nothing but bullshit and lies.

What makes me an authority? I am informed. I mean who the hell are you to tell me that I can't have a flame thrower as my weapon of self defense? Or hell, maybe I want a flare gun firing a 26.5mm projectile, why can't I have one?

But no, an AR-15 is not "just another semi-automatic weapon". The muzzle velocity can reach 3,000 fps. An SKS might get to 1,154 fps. Do you even know the definition of force? Have you ever even been in a Physics class?

And no, I don't want to debate on rather an assault rifle is suitable for self-defense. I personally think it is a stupid ass choice. And for hunting, well for the love of God, if someone is in the woods hunting with an assault rifle please let me know, so I can stay the hell out of those woods. But the argument is not germane to the question at hand.

Again, it is really damn simple. Those that support the legal status of assault rifles need to step up and demonstrate that the legal status affords more benefits to society than costs. The fact that no one even attempts to make that argument tells me all I need to know. I am here to ask you, if it is your grandkids sitting in that classroom when the deranged shooter shows up would you rather that shooter have a standard semi-automatic weapon or an AR-15? If it is an AR-15 then survivability drops by half. Choose carefully.

And back to the op. Funny, we only see Amy Swearer's opening statements. We don't see any of the questions from the committee. Did you know she was charged with perjury? I mean you can sense a problem when you look at the deranged look in her eyes. Why is it that you gun nuts, and especially you Trumptards, can't read non-verbal clues?

The whole fight to keep assault weapons legal is nothing more than protecting the profits of the gun manufacturers. The assault rifle is their profit maker. Needle dick suckers pay big bucks for a cheap ass gun that looks bad ass. And at the first sign of legislation against those pea-shooters, well it is Katy bar the door, they horde up on the damn things. SUCKERS. Seriously, suckers.

The NRA used to be a legit organization, but that was way back in the day when they sponsored my rifle team, had me teach gun safety at schools throughout the state, and actually supported strict gun control. Now they are a totally corrupt organization that is little more than a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers, who couldn't give two shits about the deaths from mass shootings and are more concerned about profits. Thousands of people, from my own father to George Bush Jr., have canceled their memberships because of this change.

I mean here is the deal, short and sweet. Address the question at hand, does the legal status of assault rifles provide a greater benefit to society than the cost it in entails, or STFU.

Here.......your ignorance is just distracting......

same as other rifles, wound ballistics, tumble lies....



========

Thus, the prohibition argument is based on 1. Rate of fire, and 2. The power of the weapons' bullets.



The rate of fire claim is preposterous. Semiautomatic rifles as a class (including those that are supposedly "assault weapons") fire at essentially the same rate as semiautomatic handguns. These handguns, from companies such as Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Springfield, or Glock, are the most common defensive firearms in the United States; under the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, they may not be prohibited. As then-Judge Kavanaugh argued in his dissent in Heller II, it is irrational to single out semiautomatic rifles for prohibition based on rate of fire, given that semiautomatic handguns are plainly constitutionally protected. Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).

----



Colt's then produced two firearms lines from the patents.



The semiautomatic AR-15 rifle was introduced to the civilian market in 1964.





The M16 was an automatic (machine gun) version for military use; it was sold in large quantities to the U.S. military and became a standard infantry weapon during the Vietnam War. The M16 and AR-15 look the same, except that the M16 has a selector switch that allows the user to choose automatic fire. Internally, the M16 has components for automatic fire and the AR-15 does not. Today, the military has adopted an improved version of the M16, namely the M4 carbine. (A carbine is a relatively short rifle.)

-----



The California AG has served the Rupp plaintiffs with an expert report and declarationfrom retired Colonel Craig Tucker, U.S. Marine Corps, who served as an infantry officer for 25 years and commanded combat units in Iraq. The curriculum vitae attached to his report is impressive and his service appreciated.



Colonel (Ret.) Tucker did not disclose in either his report or CV that he is a founding member of the Veterans Advisory Council to Michael Bloomberg's gun-control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.



---

II.A. "The AR-15 and M4 are both designed to fire a .223 round . . ."



The Tucker declaration asserts that the M4 is "designed to fire a .223 round." In fact, the the military's M4 carbine is designed to fire the 5.56mm NATO round, not the civilian .223 Remington round. It is difficult to understand how a Marine colonel with combat infantry experience would think the M4 is designed for the .223 round.



The numbers .223 and 5.56 designate the caliber of the round based on a rough approximation of bullet diameter, which is expressed in thousandths of an inch (.223 caliber) or millimeters (5.56 caliber). The U.S. military uses the NATO designation, measured in millimeters.



While the .223 and 5.56 rounds have the same bullet diameter, there is a difference. The case for the 5.56mm has a .125-inch longer throat and thus can be loaded with additional gun powder, resulting in slightly higher performance. The military M16 and M4 are 5.56mm. Civilian guns on the AR platform are sometimes .223, but the majority are 5.56mm (still able to use .223), or other calibers. Because of the higher pressure created when fired, the 5.56 round should not be used in an AR rifle chambered only for the .223 round. The .223 round can be used in a 5.56 chamber, but may cause improper cycling (e.g., jams) with shorter barrels.



II.B. "that tumbles upon hitting flesh and rips thru the human body."



To understand why this statement is false requires an explanation of wound ballistics, the study of the effects of a penetrating projectile on living tissue. Dr. Martin Fackler, military trauma surgeon, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory, and the most widely-recognized modern expert on the subject, observed that "[p]robably no scientific field contains more misinformation than wound ballistics."



A firearm bullet is propelled by the expanding gas from a gunpowder explosion. Other things being equal, a bullet fired from a longer barrel will have higher velocity than a bullet fired from a shorter barrel. For example, a bullet that travels through a 16 inch rifle barrel will spend about four times longer being propelled by the expanding gas than will a bullet that travels through a 4 inch handgun barrel.

-----



Notwithstanding Col. Tucker's claim, the bullets fired from an AR do not "tumble[] upon hitting flesh."

Bullets never "tumble" in the ordinary sense of the word. That is, they do not perform repeated 360 degree rotations horizontally or vertically. In human tissue, an intact bullet can change the angle of penetration by up to 180 degrees, meaning that the back of the bullet is now the front. The most damage occurs when the bullet has rotated 90 degrees. Then, the entire length of the intact, nondeformed bullet disrupts tissue, thus creating a larger permanent wound cavity and a larger temporary cavity.

Changes in bullet angle are called yaw. While some ballistics experts distinguish horizontal changes (yaw) from vertical changes (pitch), most use "yaw" for any change in angle.

Below, we will describe how some military ammunition, with which Col. Tucker is presumably familiar, can yaw—that is, change angle by as much as 90 to 180 degrees in human tissue. What Col. Tucker does not understand is that many civilian AR users do not choose the yaw-prone 5.56mm full metal jacket ammunition that the U.S. military uses. In fact, many AR users choose ammunition that is designed not to yaw but instead to deform.



A bullet can yaw if it stays physically intact, retaining is shape as it moves though the target. But many bullets, especially those made for self-defense, are designed not to stay intact. These bullets are designed to fragment, expand, or deform when they strike a target. For simplicity, we will call such bullets "deforming bullets," because they are designed to lose their original form when they strike.

----

The modern American infantry weapons have also been controversial for another reason. Compared to the rifle ammunition issued to almost all armies past and present, the 5.56mm FMJ is unusually lightweight. This is an advantage because a soldier can carry more ammunition, and thus continue fighting longer even when resupply is not available. This is same reason that in the 18th century, American long hunters, who might be out on expeditions for months, down-graded their calibers from the standard musket calibers of .60 or .75 to the .46 or .32 of the Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifles. The less the ammunition weighs, the more one can carry.

The disadvantage is the lower the ammunition weight, the less the stopping power. As explained above, any reduction in bullet weight is exactly matched by a reduction in kinetic energy.



==========



Tissue damage from bullets comes primarily from the permanent crushing of tissue in the bullet's path. This is the permanent cavity (a/k/a permanent track).

Additionally, if the bullet is traveling fast enough, the pressure wave following the bullet can cause temporary stretching of tissue surrounding the bullet's path. This is the temporary cavity (a/k/a temporary track).

The size of the permanent cavity is proportional to the size of the bullet. The size of the temporary cavity can vary greatly, depending on the size and location of the temporary cavity on the bullet's path and the elasticity of the tissue affected.

More elastic tissue can absorb energy more easily, and is therefore much more resistant to injury from temporary cavitation. Such tissue includes muscle, lungs, skin, blood vessels and empty or hollow organs such as the stomach, bladder, or intestines.

Less elastic tissue, such as the brain, liver, kidney, and fluid-filled organs (e.g., the heart), are more likely to shatter, rupture, or tear due to temporary cavitation. Bone fractures from temporary cavitation are rare—when a bone is shattered, it usually is due to being struck by the bullet. Injuries to extremities normally come from being hit by the bullet or bullet fragments (or bone fragments if the bone is hit) rather than by temporary cavitation.

Notwithstanding Col. Tucker's claim, the bullets fired from an AR do not "tumble[] upon hitting flesh."

Bullets never "tumble" in the ordinary sense of the word. That is, they do not perform repeated 360 degree rotations horizontally or vertically. In human tissue, an intact bullet can change the angle of penetration by up to 180 degrees, meaning that the back of the bullet is now the front. The most damage occurs when the bullet has rotated 90 degrees. Then, the entire length of the intact, nondeformed bullet disrupts tissue, thus creating a larger permanent wound cavity and a larger temporary cavity.

----

Dr. Fackler found that about 85% of military 5.56mm FMJ bullets travel point-forward at least five inches before beginning to yaw. The straighter the bullet hits the target, the longer it will take to yaw after it strikes. Thus, a nondeforming full metal jacket rifle bullet can pass completely through a human target without yawing or fragmenting, leaving a small wound channel and relatively mild injury unless it strikes a vital organ, bone, or other critical structure.

-----

Mark Bowden's bestselling book Black Hawk Down gives vivid accounts of less-than-lethal performance of the Army's green-tip 5.56mm bullet (M855) in the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. He describes one Delta operator's rounds as

passing right through his targets. When the Sammies were close enough he could see when he hit them. . . . t was like sticking somebody with an ice pick. The bullet made a small, clean hole, and unless hit happened to hit the heart or spine, it wasn't enough to stop a man in his tracks. [The operator] felt like he had to hit a guy five or six times just to get his attention.

These instances are consistent with Dr. Fackler's own findings. He recounts that

n 1980, I treated a soldier shot accidentally with an M16 M193 bullet from a distance of about ten feet. The bullet entered his left thigh and traveled obliquely upward. It exited after passing through about 11 inches of muscle. The man walked into my clinic with no limp whatsoever: the entrance and exit holes were about 4mm across, and punctate. X-ray films showed intact bones, no bullet fragments, and no evidence of significant tissue disruption caused by the bullet's temporary cavity. The bullet path passed well lateral to the femoral vessels. He was back on duty in a few days. Devastating? Hardly.

Dr. Fackler further notes that "n my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that [the 5.56mm] produced unacceptably minimal, rather than 'massive,' wounds."

Like any firearm, the AR rifle in typical calibers such as .223/5.56mm, can cause serious or lethal wounds, and so can other rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Wound profiles from the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory illustrate the permanent and temporary cavities, penetration depth, deformation, and fragmentation of both the deforming (soft-point) .223 caliber bullet, the non-deforming 5.56mm FMJ bullet, and other larger caliber bullets typically used in hunting rifles (e.g., .30-30, .308). A comparison of those profiles shows that the wounding effects of the larger caliber bullets are at least as extensive as the .223/5.56, and typically more so.

According to Dr. Fackler, the .223 Remington is "a 'varmint' cartridge, used effectively for shooting woodchucks, crows, and coyotes." Because of its smaller size, there is an ongoing debate among hunters over whether the .223 round has adequate terminal performance for taking deer or larger game. Some states ban the use of .223 caliber rifles when hunting deer and other animals larger than varmints because their rounds lack sufficient power. The ethos of hunting is to take an animal with a single fatal shot. In the views of some state game commissions, the usual AR calibers of .223 and 5.56mm are too weak; at least a .270 is required for hunting deer, antelope, or anything larger.



How powerful are AR rifles?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Those that support the legal status of assault rifles need to step up and demonstrate that the legal status affords more benefits to society than costs.

False.

As the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the ownership and use of an AR15, et al, , the Constitution presumtively protects that ownership and use..

To justify banning the AR15, et al, , the government - or, in this case, those who support said ban - may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, they must demonstrate a ban on the AR15, et al, is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Only if it can be demonstrated than a ban on the ownership and use of the AR15, et al, is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

 

[marvin martian]

Bypassing the courts and simply taking the guns from the crazies would go a long ways to helping control gun violence.

We all know you don't believe that, since we all saw you cheer when Hunter Biden's dad got him out of facing federal gun crimes prosecution. You LOVE illegal gun ownership, and now we all know it.

LOL

 

[miketx]

Bad luck for the USA. Your weapon fetishism seems to be meanwhile an irrational psychological desease of the masses. Your god little dead peaces of metal flying through the air supporting the unfreedom of 24/7-idiots.

Come get them.

 

[2aguy]

Come on fellow North Carolinian. Although I suspect someone as stupid as you must be a transplant. Address the question at hand. Does the legal status of assault weapons provide more benefits than costs to society? I mean it is easy peasy.

More benefits...you dumb ass........

Over 20 million semi-automatic AR-15 rifles in private hands.......millions more of the other types.....

Number of mass public shootings with rifles.......kill fewer people every single year than knives, clubs or bare hands....

From 2019...

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8



Knives...1,476

Clubs....397

Bare hands....600

Rifles...364