First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[lilpixieofterror]

no Jim, I started when you mocked LPOT about scary looking "assault rifles" here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post593181 this whole thread of conversation between me and you has been about scary AR15s.

the whole argument about the 2nd amendment only being about muskets has been defeated repeatedly in this thread and others, and you keep trying to change it back to that just shows you should not be pontificating about guns in the first place. you clearly have no first hand knowledge of guns other than maybe shooting one a few times. You seem to think google has made you an expert.

the 2nd amendment was written for military and personal defense purposes. to argue that guns are too "military" is just wrong. That is why we have the 2nd. Not for hunting deer or rabbits. So your argument that AR-15's are too military looking or working is like arguing free speech is too religious. so freaking what? that is the whole purpose of the amendment.

and out of the 10 million AR15s legally owned in the US, less than 10 have been used in mass shootings by legal owners. 1 in a million is no basis to take them away from everyone.

[Sparko]

It has plenty of power to take down human beings. It can do that quickly and efficiently. And after all, that is what it was designed to do.

Jim

and that is what the 2nd amendment was written for.

[Sparko]

Your point was that mass shootings by people who owned guns legally were rare, and that one shouldn't punish those who own guns legally for the acts of those who possess guns illegally. But most mass shooters do purchase their guns legally, so your point is vaporised. You are propagating a gun lobby lie.All the names I gave were from "this year".

You said "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." That's garbage.

and your source was for a decade.

provide your source for your claims.

[rogue06]

no Jim, I started when you mocked LPOT about scary looking "assault rifles" here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post593181 this whole thread of conversation between me and you has been about scary AR15s.

the whole argument about the 2nd amendment only being about muskets has been defeated repeatedly in this thread and others, and you keep trying to change it back to that just shows you should not be pontificating about guns in the first place. you clearly have no first hand knowledge of guns other than maybe shooting one a few times. You seem to think google has made you an expert.

the 2nd amendment was written for military and personal defense purposes. to argue that guns are too "military" is just wrong. That is why we have the 2nd. Not for hunting deer or rabbits. So your argument that AR-15's are too military looking or working is like arguing free speech is too religious. so freaking what? that is the whole purpose of the amendment.

and out of the 10 million AR15s legally owned in the US, less than 10 have been used in mass shootings by legal owners. 1 in a million is no basis to take them away from everyone.

You'd think that gun control advocates would have learned their lesson from the Assault Weapons Ban which outlawed firearms based on their appearance with no regard to functionality. Diane Feinstein's aides literally went through a catalog and picked out the ones that looked "scary" and put them on a list^[1]. Of course by making how it looked the criteria it should not have been a surprise when the manufactures simply made a few minor cosmetic changes (making the stock brown instead of black for instance) so that they were no longer included in the ban. But then some folks just never learn





1. This actually led to single shot guns that only held a single bullet and that you literally had to partially disassemble to put another round into it being banned.

[oxmixmudd]

How much shooting have you actually done?

Been shooting since I was 8 years old. Pistols, rifles, shotguns. Had a nice outing with an historical rifle aficionado once where I was lucky enough to shoot an actual replica of the long rifle that has been mentioned - and I did in fact hit what I was aiming at in spite of the smoke ;)

Not a hunter, all target and/or skeet.


Jim

[Roy]

I didn't address it because it isn't relevant ...

Your comments are irrelevant to whether mass shooters use legally-acquired firearms, but you still complain if those comments aren't addressed.

...since that point has not been reached.

Your comments about the widespread use of guns in Chicago suggest it has been reached, and is relevant.

[More cherry-picked data ignored]

Of course the gun grabbers whine this is all because the guns come from areas where the laws are less strict conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room that this claim raises. Shouldn't these areas with looser restrictions, where the firearms are coming from, be experiencing similar levels of gun-related violence then?

Not if the gun laws are a response to an already existing higher level of gun violence, which not only appears to be the case, but is such an obvious possibility that there is no excuse for not mentioning it.

Given your continued refusal to address my original point, your use of misleading statistics, your hypocrisy, and most of all your attempt to delete my response to your comment and then pretend I was ignoring it, I don't think you are incapable of conducting an honest conversation on this topic. You are using all the tricks and tactics that you decry in creationists and climate change deniers, apparently for the same reason - that your mind is closed and are looking only for confirming evidence.

[Roy]

So which group do you think is responsible for deaths caused by legally driven cars? Joggers? Gophers? Harmonica players?

Anyone who has a drivers license, according to your logic.

Never mind my logic (which you haven't understood), use your own logic (if you have any).

Which group do you think is responsible for deaths caused by legally driven cars?

[Roy]

looking your page which is about various weapons, I only counted 9 people who used ar-15s.

and out of the 10 million AR15s legally owned in the US, less than 10 have been used in mass shootings by legal owners.

9 out of 19 mass shooters used legally acquired AR-15s, therefore only 9 out of all mass shooters used legally acquired AR-15s?

Are you guys competing for the worst pro-gun apologetic?

[Roy]

Your point was that mass shootings by people who owned guns legally were rare, and that one shouldn't punish those who own guns legally for the acts of those who possess guns illegally. But most mass shooters do purchase their guns legally, so your point is vaporised. You are propagating a gun lobby lie. All the names I gave were from "this year".

You said "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." That's garbage.

and your source was for a decade.

provide your source for your claims.

I looked at several dozen sources, tracking down articles about the many mass shooting incidents in the US this year.

I'm not going to find them all again, because
- it took more time than your claim warrants,
- you could find them just as I did, if you were interested,
- the source I did cite refutes your garbage all by itself,
- you haven't provided a source for your claim.

[lilpixieofterror]

Never mind my logic (which you haven't understood), use your own logic (if you have any).

Which group do you think is responsible for deaths caused by legally driven cars?

[Roy]

Never mind my logic (which you haven't understood), use your own logic (if you have any).

Which group do you think is responsible for deaths caused by legally driven cars?

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?

[Sparko]

9 out of 19 mass shooters used legally acquired AR-15s, therefore only 9 out of all mass shooters used legally acquired AR-15s?

Are you guys competing for the worst pro-gun apologetic?

What? Go back and try again.

If only 1 out of a million AR-15 owners uses them to commit a mass shooting, why should the legal gun owners have their rights to own the guns taken away? Do you think it is right for every car owner to be penalized because a handful of people use vehicles to mass kill people?

The odds of being killed in an auto accident is a lot higher than being shot by a sniper in a mass shooting. over 100 people PER DAY die in cars. That like a mass shooting every day of the year!
Just think of how many lives, lives of children, that could be saved if we just outlawed automobiles! Ban cars now!

Also just a side bar I wanted to bring up for you, oxmix and other liberals:
The 2nd amendment doesn't confer the right to own firearms to US Citizens. It acknowledges we already HAVE the right to bear arms and says the government can't infringe (encroach upon or violate) that right. So even if you don't think we need a militia, that still doesn't remove our existing right. The militia was just given as a reason WHY the state can't abridge our right. It has nothing to do with GIVING us the right to bear arms. We already have that as a preexisting right.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Sparko]

I looked at several dozen sources, tracking down articles about the many mass shooting incidents in the US this year.

I'm not going to find them all again, because
- it took more time than your claim warrants,
- you could find them just as I did, if you were interested,
- the source I did cite refutes your garbage all by itself,
- you haven't provided a source for your claim.

number of ar15s owned in the USA:
Estimates vary as to how many of the rifles are owned in the United States. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has estimated that approximately 5 million to 10 million AR-15 style rifles exist in the U.S. within the broader total of the 300 million firearms owned by Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle

Number of AR-15s used in mass shootings over the last decade: Your source.
Also: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/we...ooting-aurora/

also:
Mother Jones, which tracks mass shootings that meet specific criteria, counts 46 mass shootings since 2004, when the assault weapons ban expired. Of those 46 shootings, 14 featured assault rifles, including Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino.
https://www.vox.com/2016/6/14/119245...ssault-weapons

and that is all AR15 mass shootings, not just the legally obtained ones which I was referring to. I can't find any stats that differentiate that and it doesn't even matter to my point.

[JimL]

What? Go back and try again.

If only 1 out of a million AR-15 owners uses them to commit a mass shooting, why should the legal gun owners have their rights to own the guns taken away? Do you think it is right for every car owner to be penalized because a handful of people use vehicles to mass kill people?

The odds of being killed in an auto accident is a lot higher than being shot by a sniper in a mass shooting. over 100 people PER DAY die in cars. That like a mass shooting every day of the year!
Just think of how many lives, lives of children, that could be saved if we just outlawed automobiles! Ban cars now!

Also just a side bar I wanted to bring up for you, oxmix and other liberals:
The 2nd amendment doesn't confer the right to own firearms to US Citizens. It acknowledges we already HAVE the right to bear arms and says the government can't infringe (encroach upon or violate) that right. So even if you don't think we need a militia, that still doesn't remove our existing right. The militia was just given as a reason WHY the state can't abridge our right. It has nothing to do with GIVING us the right to bear arms. We already have that as a preexisting right.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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.

[Roy]

What? Go back and try again.

If only 1 out of a million AR-15 owners uses them to commit a mass shooting, why should the legal gun owners have their rights to own the guns taken away? Do you think it is right for every car owner to be penalized because a handful of people use vehicles to mass kill people?

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.