The underlying reason why they go after AR15's so hard?

[osprey]

Don't fool yourself about their intentions, the AR 15 is just one rung on their ladder.

 

[Koda]

While they were trying to do away with most handgun they managed to greatly increase crime.

sounds like they are repeating that with rifles.

"One of the mysteries of the ages is why the political left has, for centuries, lavished so much attention on the well-being of criminals and paid so little attention to their victims." -Thomas Sowell.

 

[ma96782]

Awwwww.........Come On Man.
Get with the MODERN times.

The 2nd Amendment according to the Liberals..…

"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, unless some Politician says it's reasonable and makes common sense to them."

Is that you Brandon?

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

Don't fool yourself about their intentions, the AR 15 is just one rung on their ladder.

-- by Martin Niemoller (with my additions for firearms)

First they came for the Socialists Hi-cap magazines, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist had no Hi-cap magazines.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists Semi-automatic firearms, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist had no Semi-automatic firearms.

Then they came for the Jews shotguns, rifles and revolvers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew did not own a shotgun, rifle or revolver.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me real weapons left to put up a fight with.





Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

Take a Music break.......while some of you try to figure out where's your next destination.

Aloha, Mark

 

[trevi]

Just change the name F-15 and it is all good. Biden approved!

 

[RX-79G]

if it was theyd go for all the handguns.

There aren't a lot of handgun mass shootings where 20 people died. Most have involved semi-auto rifles, and most of those were AR15s. That fact is certainly a reason that some people are going to be biased against AR15s.

 

[Koda]

There aren't a lot of handgun mass shootings where 20 people died. Most have involved semi-auto rifles, and most of those were AR15s. That fact is certainly a reason that some people are going to be biased against AR15s.

Not according to the media, Everytown, the Gun Violence Archive. According to very widespread sources we've had hundreds of mass shootings this year alone and thousands each year annually and according to their own reports the vast majority of them are done with handguns.

edit: where did the 20 casualties metric come from?

 

[RX-79G]

Not according to the media, Everytown, the Gun Violence Archive. According to very widespread sources we've had hundreds of mass shootings this year alone and thousands each year annually and according to their own reports the vast majority of them are done with handguns.

edit: where did the 20 casualties metric come from?

It isn't a metric so much as an observation that the you need a certain casualty level before a mass shooting becomes nationally known. Simple definitions of mass shootings involving 4 or more victims don't seem to prompt the kind of media and political attention that either a lot of dead or wounded, or particular kinds of victims (children) brings.

This isn't some special rule that applies only to guns. A tornado that kills two is local news. A tornado that kills 50 is national news. Same with food poisoning, recalled vehicles and cults.


American's are clearly more terrified of large mass shootings than small ones. And perhaps that is reasonable, given that the small ones seem to be personal and limited by the relationships between the victims and murderer, while mass shootings involve the arbitrary selection of victims. Most people are going to feel that the can take social steps to avoid the former, but that the latter is a roulette wheel.

 

[Koda]

It isn't a metric so much as an observation that the you need a certain casualty level before a mass shooting becomes nationally known. Simple definitions of mass shootings involving 4 or more victims don't seem to prompt the kind of media and political attention that either a lot of dead or wounded, or particular kinds of victims (children) brings.

This isn't some special rule that applies only to guns. A tornado that kills two is local news. A tornado that kills 50 is national news. Same with food poisoning, recalled vehicles and cults.


American's are clearly more terrified of large mass shootings than small ones. And perhaps that is reasonable, given that the small ones seem to be personal and limited by the relationships between the victims and murderer, while mass shootings involve the arbitrary selection of victims. Most people are going to feel that the can take social steps to avoid the former, but that the latter is a roulette wheel.

I agree that Americans are more terrified of large mass shootings but the media and gun control community made the definition and all this shows is that they are manipulating the data to play on people fear. Clearly by their own definition if they wanted to stop "mass shootings" they would be going after handguns with more energy than they are putting on rifles.

 

[RX-79G]

I agree that Americans are more terrified of large mass shootings but the media and gun control community made the definition and all this shows is that they are manipulating the data to play on people fear. Clearly by their own definition if they wanted to stop "mass shootings" they would be going after handguns with more energy than they are putting on rifles.

This is frankly a silly thing to say. People don't operate from academic definitions but from whatever strikes them emotionally.

Your statement seems to be the same kind of thing said all the time - that the gun control people aren't acting consistently like the monoculture we believe them to be. But there isn't an anti-gun monoculture, and we are fooling ourselves when we talk about gun control support like all those people are on exactly the same page.

Of course, we do the same thing to ourselves. It is pretty foolish.

 

[Koda]

This is frankly a silly thing to say.

tell me what was not true in my comment.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

This is frankly a silly thing to say. People don't operate from academic definitions but from whatever strikes them emotionally.

Your statement seems to be the same kind of thing said all the time - that the gun control people aren't acting consistently like the monoculture we believe them to be. But there isn't an anti-gun monoculture, and we are fooling ourselves when we talk about gun control support like all those people are on exactly the same page.

Of course, we do the same thing to ourselves. It is pretty foolish.

One difference I have observed is on the anti side any bit of "anti" regardless of motivation is welcomed into the anti-movement but on our side we often see anyone with a difference of opinion, even if in the end they reach the same conclusion, result in accusation that one or the other being an "anti"

 

[Koda]

One difference I have observed is on the anti side any bit of "anti" regardless of motivation is welcomed into the anti-movement but on our side we often see anyone with a difference of opinion, even if in the end they reach the same conclusion, result in accusation that one or the other being an "anti"

The reason for that is because the root foundation of the gun control movement is prohibition.
I would have a much different view on individual "common sense" gun laws if they were not rooted in a prohibition model.

 

[RX-79G]

tell me what was not true in my comment.

You use "they" like there is only one "they". The people upset about Uvalde are not necessarily the people that decided to define mass shootings a certain way and neither of them are the elected representatives that would attempt to pass gun control.

The definition of mass shooting being 4 or whatever is an effort to define certain kinds of shootings as different than ones linked directly to robbery or to domestic violence. If you are tracking crime statistics, this may be useful. But it isn't necessarily identical to tracking the motivations of people that try to kill an entire elementary school.

 

[RX-79G]

The reason for that is because the root foundation of the gun control movement is prohibition.
I would have a much different view on individual "common sense" gun laws if they were not rooted in a prohibition model.

"Prohibition" is a word that describes the law itself, not the motivation. The motivation to prohibit drugs, or guns, or gay weddings, or meat, or gasoline vary entirely between people and causes. Not just because there are some people who like to "prohibit" things and another group that is permissive. The Right is certainly not a group that hates prohibiting things.

 

[Koda]

You use "they" like there is only one "they". The people upset about Uvalde are not necessarily the people that decided to define mass shootings a certain way and neither of them are the elected representatives that would attempt to pass gun control.

I think when people in this forum have disagreements on these discussions its when simple questions like mine are not given simple answers in return. I didn't mention Uvalde in my comment and I was clear on who I was referring to as "they". This type of strawman doesn't fly with me, but it seems to be a regular tactic if I recall (been a while since Ive seen you in the forum here).

I really love to challenge my own biases and understanding of all things political, especially gun rights. But this type of reasoning is either way over my head or not an honest discussion.

At the end of the day it doesnt matter which gun they go after first, prohibiting AR15s is a prohibiton model.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

At the end of the day it doesnt matter which gun they go after first, prohibiting AR15s is a prohibiton model.

This is very important to remember and fight against.

No matter who "they" are...or whatever firearms "they" wish to ban.
Once one type of firearm is banned...it makes it so much easier / acceptable to ban more and more firearms.
Andy

 

[RX-79G]

I think when people in this forum have disagreements on these discussions its when simple questions like mine are not given simple answers in return. I didn't mention Uvalde in my comment and I was clear on who I was referring to as "they". This type of strawman doesn't fly with me, but it seems to be a regular tactic if I recall (been a while since Ive seen you in the forum here).

I really love to challenge my own biases and understanding of all things political, especially gun rights. But this type of reasoning is either way over my head or not an honest discussion.

At the end of the day it doesnt matter which gun they go after first, prohibiting AR15s is a prohibiton model.

There was no strawman. I was observing that what you wrote intermingled the opinions and motivations of multiple different groups of people and then blamed this group as a whole of being inconsistent.

There is no single gun control viewpoint.

There isn't even a single prohibition viewpoint. Some people want to ban ARs. Some people want to license their ownership. Those people would see themselves as in opposition while you see them as the same. You can't both be right.

 

[Koda]

There was no strawman. I was observing that what you wrote intermingled the opinions and motivations of multiple different groups of people and then blamed this group as a whole of being inconsistent.

There is no single gun control viewpoint.

There isn't even a single prohibition viewpoint. Some people want to ban ARs. Some people want to license their ownership. Those people would see themselves as in opposition while you see them as the same. You can't both be right.

a different subject is a strawman. I wasnt talking about licensing ownership.
Vinnyboomba mentioned how the anti gunners accept other lesser views, but the anti gunners model is still prohibition based... They dont need to worry about lesser opinions as long as its not total disagreement it doesnt hurt their cause to move in smaller cuts.
The various means to gun control all points to prohibition as long as there is a group that promotes prohibition.

Do you support licensing the ownership of guns?