0.000005% of AR15s are used in mass shootings

[raftman]

I take it our resident troll is back? So glad for the ignore feature. I can bet who it is.

You'd think he'd get tired of starting arguments all the time, what with pretty much always being wrong about everything, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

You'd think he'd get tired of starting arguments all the time, what with pretty much always being wrong about everything, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.

His purpose is to create an argument. He wants to get people bickering with each other. That's his whole goal because it creates mental stimulation for him. You can tell them a mile away cuz they always take up the contrary position just to create conflict.

Used to work with a guy like that. Literally was never happy unless there was some interpersonal conflict in the air. If it wasn't there he would drum it up and sit back and watch peopel fighting each other. Can't stand these type of people personally.

 

[solv3nt]

And the troll wonders why people don't like him...

 

[RVTECH]

You're not a criminal until you decide to commit a crime. Unfortunately, many of the mass shooters are not criminals prior to purchasing a gun to kill people.

Which supports the the problem being mental/psychologically based and NOT at all the 'gun'.

I.E. an impulsive decision to commit a first time crime to the degree of shooting people is incredibly deranged, and if the gun was purchased only for the intent of doing so it should be obvious the person was intent on killing - and would have most likely done in another manner even if he or she could have not purchased a gun.

 

[Yarome]

And the troll wonders why people don't like him...

For lonely, chronically unhappy people... bad attention is better than none. Unhappy with themselves... they have to validate their existence, somehow(?)

 

[Yarome]

Which supports the the problem being mental/psychologically based and NOT at all the 'gun'.

I.E. an impulsive decision to commit a first time crime to the degree of shooting people is incredibly deranged, and if the gun was purchased only for the intent of doing so it should be obvious the person was intent on killing - and would have most likely done in another manner even if he or she could have not purchased a gun.

Which is one of those things that can't be legislated, predicted or, in large part, prevented. Factors that can not be controlled. But that goes against the narrative.

Being something beyond societies control, the best we can do is accept it as reality and protect against it accordingly... IE., Hardening schools, doing away with "sensitive places" and empowering citizens to accept responsibility for their own safety.

The AR is simply low hanging fruit. Stats don't matter. They need to appear to be doing something and focusing on a "common enemy" is a sure fire way to garner support. Even if you have to fabricate that "enemy".

 

[RX-79G]

Nope...it ain't deceptive.
Since you ain't a criminal....till you commit a crime.

And....
Even if a person who is already a criminal uses a AR15 while committing yet another crime....
That does not compare whatsoever with what a lawful gun owner does with his AR15.

In any event..I ain't gonna argue with you.
Any further comments from you regarding my posts here in this thread...will be ignored.
Andy

I think the point is being missed. If someone wanted to prevent mass shootings by focusing on the shooter, they have the weapon or the person. Andy makes the point that it isn't the weapon's fault, so the focus should be on the shooter. But these type of crimes frequently involve people that aren't already criminals, and might be subject to red flags, but those are also opposed. Which is a large reason why people upset about mass shootings default to the gun, since they can't do anything about the people.


Not a defense of gun control as much as saying "So what do we suggest?" And the answer never comes.

 

[RX-79G]

The majority of mass shooters, by the current body count definition, already have criminal records

But not the majority of spree shooters, where the killing is not related to drugs, turf, previous interactions, etc. School shootings, churches, etc.

 

[RX-79G]

For lonely, chronically unhappy people... bad attention is better than none. Unhappy with themselves... they have to validate their existence, somehow(?)

You seem like a gifted psychologist. Maybe you could fix the suicide by mass shooting problem.

 

[Koda]

But not the majority of spree shooters, where the killing is not related to drugs, turf, previous interactions, etc. School shootings, churches, etc.

If we're going to change the definition to the person's motive, then every single spree killer has psychological problems that usually have a medical or even criminal trail behind them.
But one of the issues in rare cases is first time offe ders, who don't have a documented history of mental illness. These cases are very rare.

 

[RX-79G]

If we're going to change the definition to the person's motive, then every single spree killer has psychological problems that usually have a medical or even criminal trail behind them.
But one of the issues in rare cases is first time offe ders, who don't have a documented history of mental illness. These cases are very rare.

It doesn't matter if you have a medical trail if you oppose laws that target such.

 

[solv3nt]

But not the majority of spree shooters, where the killing is not related to drugs, turf, previous interactions, etc. School shootings, churches, etc.

Spree shooters still only account for five to ten annually with a total body count of around 100, which is considerably lower than the gang shootings. The problem is that "mass shootings" now seem to include gang shootings, which convolutes the discussion.

 

[Yarome]

Spree shooters still only account for five to ten annually with a total body count of around 100, which is considerably lower than the gang shootings. The problem is that "mass shootings" now seem to include gang shootings, which convolutes the discussion.

What's kind of funny (odd.. not "ha ha") with expanding the definition... it seems it was meant to increase the "grave threat to children" argument to support more gun-control, but in doing so they ended up making actual spree shootings more of an "outlier" within those stats.

Two separate sets of issues in play with entirely different approaches needed to help reduce their occurrences.

 

[Koda]

It doesn't matter if you have a medical trail if you oppose laws that target such.

The problem is the people struggling with no record. First time criminals. Nothing can be done about that except take away rights from sane people in the process.

How would you propose we prohibit people struggling with mental health issues that don't have criminal records? What laws target medical history's that we are opposing?

 

[Yarome]

Not a defense of gun control as much as saying "So what do we suggest?" And the answer never comes.

The answer has been presented many times over... it's just that people who keep saying "the answer never comes" are simply choosing to ignore the answers. The solutions fly in the face of their narrative so they won't even acknowledge that there are, in fact, actual solutions.

 

[RX-79G]

Spree shooters still only account for five to ten annually with a total body count of around 100, which is considerably lower than the gang shootings. The problem is that "mass shootings" now seem to include gang shootings, which convolutes the discussion.

There are two kinds of mass shootings in the popular conception, and no one is working to separate them.

However, 5 to 10 AR-15 shootings with 20+ victims isn't an easy thing to overlook when they are kids.

 

[RX-79G]

The problem is the people struggling with no record. First time criminals. Nothing can be done about that except take away rights from sane people in the process.

How would you propose we prohibit people struggling with mental health issues that don't have criminal records? What laws target medical history's?

I don't propose. I'm pointing out why these discussions are meaningless.

 

[RX-79G]

The answer has been presented many times over... it's just that people who keep saying "the answer never comes" are simply choosing to ignore the answers. The solutions fly in the face of their narrative so they won't even acknowledge that there are, in fact, actual solutions.

I frankly have no idea what you are talking about

 

[po18guy]

How many angles can you get on the head of a pin? You should really stop being so obtuse.

Truculence is no response to obtuseness.

 

[solv3nt]

Truculence is no response to obtuseness.

Damn sun, I had to googlefu that won. Well played maestro.