First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[Sparko]

No, Sparko, you try again.

You have repeatedly tried to blame mass shootings on possessors of illegal weapons, claiming only a handful of mass shooters have used weapons they owned legally. That is not true. Your most recent claim that "less than 10 [AR-15s] have been used in mass shootings by legal owners" is pure invention. You have absolutely no idea what the actual figure is, and can't be bothered to check.

You and the other pro-gunners here keep trying to support your arguments with cherry-picked data and invented "stats". It is not and never will be convincing.

I just gave you the statistics Roy, and it doesn't even matter whether they are legal or not. The number of AR15s used in mass shootings is about 10 over the last decade. Legal or not, I have no idea. I will let you claim they were all legal for the purposes of my point, that to punish all legal AR15 owners for the action of way less than 1% is just ignorant.

[Sparko]

It isn't a god given or natural right, it was a right because there was no previous law banning arms. .

That's not how rights work JimL

Especially in our constitution. The people are assumed to have rights and the constitution limits how the government cannot interfere with them.

[Roy]

There are about 50 million gun owners in the US. The number of legal gun owners who ever committed mass shootings can probably be counted on one hand. heck let's say two hands. ten..

number of ar15s owned in the USA.

Spot the goal-post movement.

[lilpixieofterror]

If you actually understood my logic, you wouldn't need to dodge the question, and you'd be able to show that I'm wrong rather than merely claiming it.

3rd time: Which group do you think is responsible for deaths caused by legally driven cars?

[Roy]

3rd time: Which group do you think is responsible for deaths caused by legally driven cars?

Dodging: (actual definition): not answering.

Thanks for playing.

[Sparko]

Spot the goal-post movement.

yeesh. OK maybe I confused my discussion with you with my AR15 discussion with Jim.

OK

Number of households in the USA 126 million. https://www.statista.com/statistics/...lds-in-the-us/
Number of households with guns: 43% https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ing-a-firearm/
43% of 126 million = 54.3 million households with guns.

Number of mass shootings by verified legal gun owners since 2008: 46 - source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...L8o/edit#gid=0
(This is higher than I originally guessed by a factor of 4)

Percentage of legal gun owners who have committed mass shootings in the last decade: 46/54,300,000 = 8.47145 x 10^-7. or .00008%

Same point. Why should the majority of legal gun owners be penalized for the actions of .00008%?

[rogue06]

It isn't a god given or natural right, it was a right because there was no previous law banning arms. So yes, we have the right to bear arms, but that spoke to the common arms of the time, it didn't ban regulations with respect to gun ownership, nor did it pertain to surface to air missiles, nuclear bombs, or AR-15's. Even your own conservative SC Justice Antone Scalia tried to explain that to you.

00000000000000ar000.jpg

[Sparko]

guns.jpg

[Terraceth]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33321[/ATTACH]

I'm curious. What religious text states there is a right to bear arms?

[JimL]

That's not how rights work JimL

Especially in our constitution. The people are assumed to have rights and the constitution limits how the government cannot interfere with them.

Our Constitution was written by imperfect men, not by god, and so they weren't thinking 200 years into the future, they were thinking about the common weapons of the time, i.e. they were talking about muskets and such. You still have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean that that right is unlimited. If due to the lack of common sense as portrayed by so many on the right, we need to amend the Constitution in order to make clear to you that the right to bear arms is not an unlimited right, then perhaps we should do that, even though your own conservative justices have already interpreted that to be a common sense fact.

Btw, would you say that it is absolutely everyones right to bear arms, because the Constitution isn't explicit in answer to that question either?

[rogue06]

I'm curious. What religious text states there is a right to bear arms?

The expression "God-given" appears to come from the phrase in the Declaration of Independence which says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." As for Scripture the first thing that comes to mind is where in Luke Jesus commands the Apostles to arm themselves for the purpose of self-defense "let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one" (Luke 22:36). Back then the weapon for self-defense was a sword while today it would be a firearm.

[Leonhard]

I ask again to the pro-gun right people here. If the police comes to your door, is it a good idea to wave a loaded gun in their face and refuse to put it down?

[Roy]

Number of households in the USA 126 million. https://www.statista.com/statistics/...lds-in-the-us/
Number of households with guns: 43% https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ing-a-firearm/
43% of 126 million = 54.3 million households with guns.

Number of mass shootings by verified legal gun owners since 2008: 46 - source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...L8o/edit#gid=0
(This is higher than I originally guessed by a factor of 4)

Which was my point. You vastly underestimated the number of mass shootings carried out by legal gun owners - and still are, since your original claim wasn't limited to events after 2008. You underestimated the numbers so much that you were effectively shifting the blame for mass shootings onto illegal gun owners.

Percentage of legal gun owners who have committed mass shootings in the last decade: 46/54,300,000 = 8.47145 x 10^-7. or .00008%

Same point. Why should the majority of legal gun owners be penalized for the actions of .00008%?

They shouldn't. No-one says they should. The blame should be placed on those who allow potential mass shooters to purchase their weapons legally.

[Cerebrum123]

I ask again to the pro-gun right people here. If the police comes to your door, is it a good idea to wave a loaded gun in their face and refuse to put it down?

No, it's not a good idea.

[Sparko]

Our Constitution was written by imperfect men, not by god, and so they weren't thinking 200 years into the future, they were thinking about the common weapons of the time, i.e. they were talking about muskets and such. You still have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean that that right is unlimited. If due to the lack of common sense as portrayed by so many on the right, we need to amend the Constitution in order to make clear to you that the right to bear arms is not an unlimited right, then perhaps we should do that, even though your own conservative justices have already interpreted that to be a common sense fact.

Btw, would you say that it is absolutely everyones right to bear arms, because the Constitution isn't explicit in answer to that question either?

Jim, they were not idiots, they knew firearms technology would increase as time went on. They saw it increase in their own time, going from muskets to rifles and cannons and even machine guns as I showed you earlier. Your tired refrain has been defeated repeatedly and yet you just repeat it again and again. They expected that as firearms got better, the people would also keep better firearms. They would stay current.

And again, they were not PERMITTING the people to have firearms, muskets or not. The 2nd amendment just confirms that the people already HAVE the right to bear arms and the the government cannot infringe upon it.

Do you know what infringe means, Jiml? Please explain it to us.