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

[RX-79G]

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?

But you would agree that someone in favor of licensing, with even a guarantee of no bans, is "anti-gun" and therefore a prohibitionist?


I do not support licensing.


The reason we are having this conversation is that I don't think you can effectively combat a problem if you purposely mischaracterize the people on the otherside of the debate and their motivations. You can't recruit people that you are maligning by assigning them false motivations.

Though it is always attractive to mischaracterize the opposition when your side makes unreasonable demands of loyalty. Have to "show the flag" by denouncing everything but the most extreme party line, or be labeled disloyal. (Or be asked if you support licensing.)

 

[Koda]

But you would agree that someone in favor of licensing, with even a guarantee of no bans, is "anti-gun" and therefore a prohibitionist?


I do not support licensing.


The reason we are having this conversation is that I don't think you can effectively combat a problem if you purposely mischaracterize the people on the otherside of the debate and their motivations. You can't recruit people that you are maligning by assigning them false motivations.

Though it is always attractive to mischaracterize the opposition when your side makes unreasonable demands of loyalty. Have to "show the flag" by denouncing everything but the most extreme party line, or be labeled disloyal. (Or be asked if you support licensing.)

Except Im not mischaracterizing the opposition. They state their prohibition model clearly. I made it clear who "they" were when I addressed them you can go to their sites and read it clear. We did not need to go down a rabbit hole there dissecting the various levels of gun control.
I am not making any unreasonable demands, gun rights is not an unreasonable ideology. Ive never demanded anyone take up my opinion on what gun rights should be. Ive never labeled anyone as disloyal. Someone who supports licensing supports prohibiting certain people, thats a fact. Im not labeling anyone as disloyal for stating that licensing is a form of prohibition. If you disagree, say so without the presuppositions about me (and or others here) because that doesnt fly and I suspect why several here have taken issue with your replies.

 

[RX-79G]

Except Im not mischaracterizing the opposition. They state their prohibition model clearly. I made it clear who "they" were when I addressed them you can go to their sites and read it clear. We did not need to go down a rabbit hole there dissecting the various levels of gun control.
I am not making any unreasonable demands, gun rights is not an unreasonable ideology. Ive never demanded anyone take up my opinion on what gun rights should be. Ive never labeled anyone as disloyal. Someone who supports licensing supports prohibiting certain people, thats a fact. Im not labeling anyone as disloyal for stating that licensing is a form of prohibition. If you disagree, say so without the presuppositions about me (and or others here) because that doesnt fly and I suspect why several here have taken issue with your replies.

They, they, they.

The people that are currently up in arms about large mass shootings and want to ban AR15s are not the people that defined mass shooting as 4 or more dead.

But you keep talking about "them" as if they are the same, and then complaining that they aren't sticking to their ideals. Which is a kind of strawman.


To be fair, the people that created the definition of "mass shooting" don't have to be anti-gun at all. They are defining categories of crime and the implied motivations of criminals.


And I'm not making any presuppositions about you. I'm quoting you and pointing out that you are categorizing in those quotes in a way that is inconsistent with reality.

 

[Koda]

The people that are currently up in arms about large mass shootings and want to ban AR15s are not the people that defined mass shooting as 4 or more dead.

The people that defined mass shootings at 4 or more are not the ones that want to ban AR15s?

 

[CLT65]

Many people simply believe all the BS pushed by anti gunners about the AR15 , so its easy to add more or present it as some sort of evil killing machine.

This is true. The propaganda around this has been that the AR is something truly different from other rifles, a bullet-spraying death-ray, lethal beyond all others. The emotional, ignorant masses eat it up.

I've posted this before, but it's a good illustration of what "they" want everyone to think an AR is:

The AR has evolved into a reliable, accurate, modular platform over the last 64 years, but functionally it's really no different from a myriad of others. It really is a "poster child" for the gun control crowd because they've made it into so much more than it is, in the minds of the public.

 

[RX-79G]

The people that defined mass shootings at 4 or more are not the ones that want to ban AR15s?

Some of them are, I'm sure. But millions of people want to ban AR15s and only a few people worked to define "mass shootings".

Regardless of whether you agree with the definition or not, the purpose of the definition is to serve a criminology role. It separates the shooting of a group of people by whether it was motivated by gang affiliation, family, warfare, monetary gain or just violence for its own sake.

The current spate of large mass shootings often hinge on a subset of the definition, where it isn't disgruntled people but fame seekers. And fame seekers have the highest body counts.

 

[RX-79G]

This is true. The propaganda around this has been that the AR is something truly different from other rifles, a bullet-spraying death-ray, lethal beyond all others. The emotional, ignorant masses eat it up.

I've posted this before, but it's a good illustration of what "they" want everyone to think an AR is:

The AR has evolved into a reliable, accurate, modular platform over the last 64 years, but functionally it's really no different from a myriad of others. It really is a "poster child" for the gun control crowd because they've made it into so much more than it is, in the minds of the public.

When many pro-gun people suggest a home defense weapon, they stress the terminal ballistics, ease of control and capacity of the AR15.

When many anti-gun people suggest a gun to ban because of its involvement in mass shootings, they stress the terminal ballistics, ease of control and capacity of the AR15.

 

[ma96782]

Interesting.......
That some believe, that BANNING an "INANIMATE OBJECT" is somehow gonna solve a problem.


In other words.........
Don't we already have many statutes against MURDER?



Aloha, Mark

 

[RX-79G]

Interesting.......
That some believe, that BANNING an "INANIMATE OBJECT" is somehow gonna solve a problem.

View attachment 1396107
In other words.........
Don't we already have many statutes against MURDER?

View attachment 1396106

Aloha, Mark

Why is that interesting? Its hardly a new idea that you ban clinics, booze, drugs, weapons, etc when you don't like the behavior that goes with them.

 

[ma96782]

Aloha, Mark

 

[CLT65]

When pro-gun people suggest a home defense weapon, they stress the terminal ballistics, ease of control and capacity of the AR15.

When anti-gun people suggest a gun to ban because of its involvement in mass shootings, they stress the terminal ballistics, ease of control and capacity of the AR15.

I've never noticed that level of rationality from the gun control crowd. They prefer sensationalism and emotional appeals, from what I've seen.

There are certain people on this forum that I don't care to interact with, for various reasons, so that's all I'll say about that.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

When pro-gun people suggest a home defense weapon, they stress the terminal ballistics, ease of control and capacity of the AR15.

Some pro gun people may do so...I for one do not.
I usually suggest a firearm that works for them , in their situation...which may or may not be a AR15.
Experience , their likes in firearms , their living situation...all play a role in what I would suggest.

When anti-gun people suggest a gun to ban because of its involvement in mass shootings, they stress the terminal ballistics, ease of control and capacity of the AR15.

Again...some may do so , however....
Many of the anti gun people I have had to listen to....don't know diddly squat about firearms.

Blanket statements often don't "cover"" as much as one would want.,
Andy

 

[Koda]

Some of them are, I'm sure. But millions of people want to ban AR15s and only a few people worked to define "mass shootings".

Were approaching this from two directions....
Ive already clearly defined the people who made up the definitions as Everytown etc. gun control groups that are established. They do want to prohibit guns.
The millions of people that follow them are not who Ive been referring to.

Were now going in circles.

So far in all this discussion Ive seen nothing to show the AR15 is targeted exclusively for mass shootings. If the gun control lobby really wanted to target the gun thats used in most mass shootings they would start with prohibiting handguns.

 

[RX-79G]

Some pro gun people may do so...I for one do not.
I usually suggest a firearm that works for them , in their situation...which may or may not be a AR15.
Experience , their likes in firearms , their living situation...all play a role in what I would suggest.


Again...some may do so , however....
Many of the anti gun people I have had to listen to....don't know diddly squat about firearms.

Blanket statements often don't "cover"" as much as one would want.,
Andy

Regardless, you must understand the point I'm making - that we are fully aware of the advantages of 5.56 weapons, but seemingly act dumb if someone points to those same characteristics as a societal negative.


The real answer is not that AR15s aren't dangerous weapons. They are. Let's stop acting like they are being mischaracterized and acknowledge that mass shootings are the downside to a necessarily armed populace.

 

[RX-79G]

Were approaching this from two directions....
Ive already clearly defined the people who made up the definitions as Everytown etc. gun control groups that are established. They do want to prohibit guns.
The millions of people that follow them are not who Ive been referring to.

Were now going in circles.

So far in all this discussion Ive seen nothing to show the AR15 is targeted exclusively for mass shootings. If the gun control lobby really wanted to target the gun thats used in most mass shootings they would start with prohibiting handguns.

AR15s are currently being specifically targeted for banning due to their prevalence in the largest mass shootings. Do you watch the news or not?

Do you think crimes should be categorized by the motivation of the criminal? Do you think it is good or bad to track the reasons for different crimes?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Most gangbanger shootouts meet their "mass shooting" definition.

 

[Koda]

Regardless, you must understand the point I'm making - that we are fully aware of the advantages of 5.56 weapons, but seemingly act dumb if someone points to those same characteristics as a societal negative.


The real answer is not that AR15s aren't dangerous weapons. They are. Let's stop acting like they are being mischaracterized and acknowledge that mass shootings are the downside to a necessarily armed populace.

I agree except the last part. Mass shootings are not a downside to an armed populace. Mass shootings can be prevented in an armed populace, and also mass shootings are not preventable in populations where guns are prohibited.

 

[RX-79G]

I've never noticed that level of rationality from the gun control crowd. They prefer sensationalism and emotional appeals, from what I've seen.

Are you saying pro-gun people don't go for sensationalism and emotional appeals?

They do.

 

[Koda]

AR15s are currently being specifically targeted for banning due to their prevalence in the largest mass shootings. Do you watch the news or not?

Do you think crimes should be categorized by the motivation of the criminal? Do you think it is good or bad to track the reasons for different crimes?

Now your making up new definitions. What are "largest mass shootings"?
Nevermind.... I dont have time to go down another rabbit hole.

Mass shootings are currently defined as 4 or more. The type of gun does not matter....

Yes, crimes should be classified by the motive of the criminal. Its probably good to track those motives.

 

[RX-79G]

I agree except the last part. Mass shootings are not a downside to an armed populace. Mass shootings can be prevented in an armed populace, and also mass shootings are not preventable in populations where guns are prohibited.

They can't be prevented in our populace the way it is right now. We could prevent them if we banned crowds and unlocked buildings.