Virginia gun control law kept AR-15 out of hands of DC shooter

[PredFan]

Tyrannical Virginia Gun Law Kept DC Shooter From Buying AR-15

"Aaron Alexis, who was unable to purchase the AR-15 he wanted last week because Virginia law “prohibits the sale of such weapons to out-of-state buyers.” Instead, he bought “a law-enforcement-style shotgun — an 870 Remington pump-action” — which he used in his deadly rampage Monday.
Read more at Tyrannical Virginia Gun Law Kept DC Shooter From Buying AR-15 "

"It’s probably worth noting that Alexis had to pump the shotgun each time he fired, and that the Remington has a standard seven-round magazine. An AR-15, on the other hand, fires a round with each pull of the trigger, with a rate of fire much faster than a shotgun’s, and typical magazines hold 20 to 30 rounds, although higher-capacity magazines — 60 to 100 rounds — are also popular. In the Newtown massacre, Adam Lanza managed to fire 155 rounds in under five minutes.
Read more at Tyrannical Virginia Gun Law Kept DC Shooter From Buying AR-15 "


But, of course, NRA teaches us that laws like this don't work, and that free access to guns saves lives....

Thank God he didn't get one or people might have died.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you go to Gunstats.org, you can get the real skinny on the weapon of choice in all documented homicides in the USA.

Here we see that 68% of homicides in the USA are committed via firearms. But it logically follows that a whopping 32% of homicides are committed with something other than a firearm, and it is hard to make a case that removing firearms from the equation would substantially reduce the number of murders. You would have to assume that those who commit murder would choose not to do so if they didn't have access to a gun.

And the among other statistics available at that website is one that the huge majority of gun related homicides are committed with ordinary weapons--hand guns, shotguns, rifles. And though the rare mass homicides committed via 'assault rifles' are horrendous, and invariavly trigger a new round of demands for more gun control, the fact remains that removing all weapons remotely identified as 'assault weapons' from the equation will have little effect on the overall homicide rate.

Given that Americans were just as if not more heavily armed in the early 20th Century, and far more poor then than Americans are now, but the homicide rate was a tiny percentage of what we see now, I suggest we look for cultural and moral reasons for our homicide rate rather than the type of weapons that are used.

 

[RKMBrown]

If you go to Gunstats.org, you can get the real skinny on the weapon of choice in all documented homicides in the USA.

Here we see that 68% of homicides in the USA are committed via firearms. But it logically follows that a whopping 32% of homicides are committed with something other than a firearm, and it is hard to make a case that removing firearms from the equation would substantially reduce the number of murders. You would have to assume that those who commit murder would choose not to do so if they didn't have access to a gun.

And the among other statistics available at that website is one that the huge majority of gun related homicides are committed with ordinary weapons--hand guns, shotguns, rifles. And though the rare mass homicides committed via 'assault rifles' are horrendous, and invariavly trigger a new round of demands for more gun control, the fact remains that removing all weapons remotely identified as 'assault weapons' from the equation will have little effect on the overall homicide rate.

Given that Americans were just as if not more heavily armed in the early 20th Century, and far more poor then than Americans are now, but the homicide rate was a tiny percentage of what we see now, I suggest we look for cultural and moral reasons for our homicide rate rather than the type of weapons that are used.

Fox, last I checked, they count suicides in the homicide count. So homicides does not equal murders unless you agree with the self-murder concept. Seems odd.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Note the largest sections are "other" not specified and unknown.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you go to Gunstats.org, you can get the real skinny on the weapon of choice in all documented homicides in the USA.

Here we see that 68% of homicides in the USA are committed via firearms. But it logically follows that a whopping 32% of homicides are committed with something other than a firearm, and it is hard to make a case that removing firearms from the equation would substantially reduce the number of murders. You would have to assume that those who commit murder would choose not to do so if they didn't have access to a gun.

And the among other statistics available at that website is one that the huge majority of gun related homicides are committed with ordinary weapons--hand guns, shotguns, rifles. And though the rare mass homicides committed via 'assault rifles' are horrendous, and invariavly trigger a new round of demands for more gun control, the fact remains that removing all weapons remotely identified as 'assault weapons' from the equation will have little effect on the overall homicide rate.

Given that Americans were just as if not more heavily armed in the early 20th Century, and far more poor then than Americans are now, but the homicide rate was a tiny percentage of what we see now, I suggest we look for cultural and moral reasons for our homicide rate rather than the type of weapons that are used.

Fox, last I checked, they count suicides in the homicide count. So homicides does not equal murders unless you agree with the self-murder concept. Seems odd.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 11

Note the largest sections are "other" not specified and unknown.

All the statistical sources I've used over the years reported suicides separately from homicides.

But if you can find better stats than what Gunstats.org offers, feel free to put them out there if you think it makes a point that contradicts the conclusion I drew from the Gunstats statistics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No...it goes into the guy NEXT TO the guy he was aiming at! Yet again: Are you really THIS GOD-DAMNED STUPID, boy?!?!

So everyone is lined up and packed together, waiting to be shot.

It's obvious you've never been near a gun.

It was a secure building, which turned the exits into choke points, but keep pretending you are are smarter than rdean.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What purpose does it serve you to lie about what I believe?

Do you get accolades from the idiots? Do you think that approval from idiots is anything other than the fact that you think and speak in a way that idiots appreciate?

If you don't believe that people should be denied the opportunity to buy a gun because they might do something bad you must oppose all background checks that are not based on actual criminal convictions. since you don't, I am not the one lying.

You're the one who believes in having no government at all, so you don't believe in government imposed background checks for any reason under any circumstances.

You keep confusing me with the voices in your head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What purpose does it serve you to lie about what I believe?

Do you get accolades from the idiots? Do you think that approval from idiots is anything other than the fact that you think and speak in a way that idiots appreciate?

If you don't believe that people should be denied the opportunity to buy a gun because they might do something bad you must oppose all background checks that are not based on actual criminal convictions. since you don't, I am not the one lying.

Disqualifications for mental health reasons do not require criminal convictions.

No, they require a judge to rule that the guy might do something stupid so the state can pretend it is being nice by taking away his rights rather than getting him the help he needs.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No...it goes into the guy NEXT TO the guy he was aiming at! Yet again: Are you really THIS GOD-DAMNED STUPID, boy?!?!

So everyone is lined up and packed together, waiting to be shot.

It's obvious you've never been near a gun.

In a crowded room or hallway...yes, in fact, they are!

Yet again: Are you really THIS GOD-DAMNED STUPID, boy?!?!

 

[Jarlaxle]

The nuts around here are now against any background checks whatsoever, and now against anyone with mental issues being denied the right to buy a gun

YOU NEED TO STOP WITH THE FUCKING LYING!

Dumbass.

Do you support background check requirements for private sales of guns?

I don't have a problem with it...except I do not see it accomplishing anything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No...it goes into the guy NEXT TO the guy he was aiming at! Yet again: Are you really THIS GOD-DAMNED STUPID, boy?!?!

So everyone is lined up and packed together, waiting to be shot.

It's obvious you've never been near a gun.

In a crowded room or hallway...yes, in fact, they are!

Yet again: Are you really THIS GOD-DAMNED STUPID, boy?!?!

This has GOT to be a rhetorical question.

 

[RKMBrown]

If you go to Gunstats.org, you can get the real skinny on the weapon of choice in all documented homicides in the USA.

Here we see that 68% of homicides in the USA are committed via firearms. But it logically follows that a whopping 32% of homicides are committed with something other than a firearm, and it is hard to make a case that removing firearms from the equation would substantially reduce the number of murders. You would have to assume that those who commit murder would choose not to do so if they didn't have access to a gun.

And the among other statistics available at that website is one that the huge majority of gun related homicides are committed with ordinary weapons--hand guns, shotguns, rifles. And though the rare mass homicides committed via 'assault rifles' are horrendous, and invariavly trigger a new round of demands for more gun control, the fact remains that removing all weapons remotely identified as 'assault weapons' from the equation will have little effect on the overall homicide rate.

Given that Americans were just as if not more heavily armed in the early 20th Century, and far more poor then than Americans are now, but the homicide rate was a tiny percentage of what we see now, I suggest we look for cultural and moral reasons for our homicide rate rather than the type of weapons that are used.

Fox, last I checked, they count suicides in the homicide count. So homicides does not equal murders unless you agree with the self-murder concept. Seems odd.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 11

Note the largest sections are "other" not specified and unknown.

All the statistical sources I've used over the years reported suicides separately from homicides.

But if you can find better stats than what Gunstats.org offers, feel free to put them out there if you think it makes a point that contradicts the conclusion I drew from the Gunstats statistics.

I linked to the source of your site's stats above. If you look at the actual data you will see a very large portion are unknown causes. Could be suicide.

Additionally if you look over the stats you will see pistols are #1 with knives blunt instruments fists... then way down you get rifles and shot guns. Rifles and shot guns are not good for suicides unless you want to use your toes. If you have a gun.. well never mind. The point is the weapon selected is one of convenience, not utility. Pistols are small and work well. So are knives. That's why knives are much more likely to be used than long guns and shotguns. Otherwise, if it was all about gun powder I would expect to see pistols then shotguns then rifles then... knives and blunt instruments... but that's not shown in the statistics. Even though the number of rifles and shotguns out there is MASSIVE.