The Great (Gun Ban) Hoax Liberals are pushing. Lets do the math

There's misinformation and omissions espoused by gun-grabbers about the ArmaLite 15 Rifle and its ammo here in this thread. But why am I surprised: I've found it typical of gun-grabbers? Tongue in cheek, intentional maybe?

 

Part of "common sense" is that what is done needs to be effective. The VAST majority of stuff that comes out of Everytown, Brady, Giffords, etc. wouldn't be effective in stopping violence.

 

And yet most mass shootings are committed by handguns. They know they're not going to get them, (DC vs. Heller), so the next item on their list is 2) the scary looking rifles.


(The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms and that the district’s handgun ban and trigger lock requirement violated the Second Amendment.) D.C. v. Heller: A Landmark Second Amendment Ruling (thoughtco.com)

 

It's an excellent varmint and target shooting firearm (sporting rifle). It's also a good in-home self-defense rifle because if one uses hollow-point bullets, fragments may never get out of the house.

The terms "AR-style weapons" or "assault-style weapons" are routinely bandied about by gun-grabbers. In other words, all semiautomatic firearms. A large proportion of rifles and handguns in civilian hands are semiautomatic firearms -- incrementalism at its finest. Gun-grabbers will not be happy until all civilians are fully disarmed, but they can't be that honest for propaganda reasons.

 

They are not going to ban AR-15s.
Murphy: Gun reform talks won’t include assault weapons ban, ‘comprehensive’ background checks (yahoo.com)

"Sen. Chris Murphy, who is helping lead Senate talks on gun control, said lawmakers don’t plan to bring any bill to the floor that would ban assault weapons or include comprehensive background checks, but are actively working on legislation that would include a range of other measures. :

“We’re not going to put a piece of legislation on the table that’s going to ban assault weapons, or we’re not going to pass comprehensive background checks,” Murphy, D-Conn, said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." “But right now, people in this country want us to make progress. They just don’t want the status quo to continue for another 30 years.”

"Among the items currently on the table are investments in mental health care, school safety money, red flag laws and changes to strengthen the current background check system, said Murphy."

 

LOL. you are manipulating numbers here to fit your illogical argument. Suicides, law enforcement deaths, and other examples you provided have different circumstances that go beyond the use of firearms. And that is exactly what I pointed out. The coincidence does not make causation argument, which you are explicitly using in your OP.

you still do not understand, so let me elucidate you for a moment.

90% of people eat carrots
100% of people will die while eating carrots sometime in their lifetime.
Thus, carrots are bad for your health and therefore one should not eat carrots.

That is manipulating numbers here to fit a argument. It is a statistical bias and you have yet to disprove that claim I am making on your "numbers" here.

No deflection. It is a historical and incontrovertible fact that the US is not the only country to keep and bear arms by Constitution or statutory right. Hence, you are missing something very important in your quasi Intelectual OP and are intentionally ignoring it. We call that political bias.

In the 200 years of the United States and the 2a, the Supreme Court has never made that interpretation, but the NRA has in the last 20 years or so. Nothing in the Heller case or any other case states that. In the times of the Founding Fathers, "shall not be infringed" did not even mean that definition and we should abide by what the Founding Fathers wanted in our Constitution.

A good historical analysis of the 2a is here. And this article explains "shall not be infringed" actually means in the context of the Constitution.

Thus, stating that "shall not be infringed" is absolute is the lie the NRA is telling you because nothing in the history of the 2a or in the Supreme Court rulings, including Heller, makes that the case.

Not a deflection. Just a fact. Suicides are preventable, but the prevention is not with firearms per se, but with identifying the signs of suicide. It is prudent not to provide a firearm to people who are thinking about suicide or have mental disorders just as it is prudent not to give a pyromaniac a box of matches while in the forest either. Common sense here.

Or are you wanting people with severe mental disorders to have the ability to purchase firearms without any common sense initiatives because you believe "shall not be infringed is absolute?"

Again, not a deflection here, but a fact. Under current law, private purchases have no requirement for background checks or any other paperwork between two individuals. And if you sell a firearm to a criminal without a background check, you can always use the argument "well my gun was stolen a year or two back" excuse. I want to eliminate that as much as possible, which is why UBC, if done right, could prevent a majority of those occurrences. Yet, you want people to sell to criminals because of your belief that "shall not be infringed is absolute?"

The pro-gun culture is the biggest problem right now and it is why people are trying to solve problems with firearms instead of their head or other means. It is why we have road rage on the rise, it is why we have the machoism of holding a firearm with a bulletproof vest and stating to the world on social media that if you mess with them that they will have the right to defend themselves using firearms. And the list goes on and on and on and on. And yet, because of that machoism, we are surprised young kids are going to school to shoot up the place because they are angry or an adult going to the hospital in Tulsa because the doctor refused to give him oxycodone? You can't blame things you already hate because it has nothing to do with that in most circumstances. And that is the real problem here. Change the culture of the pro-gun crowd and we will see a definite drop in mass casualty events.

Your OP is nothing about anything other than a futile attempt at not dealing with the real issues surrounding gun violence. Not all murders by firearms are the same whether it is in the act of committing a crime or the Uvalde or Tulsa shooting incidents or suicides or anything else you can come up with.

 

Congress doesn't plan on banning assault rifles nor does it plan on blaming responsible gun owners as you are in your above screed.

"Sen. Chris Murphy, who is helping lead Senate talks on gun control, said lawmakers don’t plan to bring any bill to the floor that would ban assault weapons or include comprehensive background checks, but are actively working on legislation that would include a range of other measures."

“We’re not going to put a piece of legislation on the table that’s going to ban assault weapons, or we’re not going to pass comprehensive background checks,” Murphy, D-Conn, said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." “But right now, people in this country want us to make progress. They just don’t want the status quo to continue for another 30 years.”

Among the items currently on the table are investments in mental health care, school safety money, red flag laws and changes to strengthen the current background check system, said Murphy.
Lawmakers have been meeting regularly to try to hammer out a deal and Murphy expressed optimism that the two parties can strike a deal."

Today's news, link:
Murphy rules out assault weapons ban, new background checks in Senate proposal (nbcnews.com)

 

Do you have any idea what the Protect Our Kids Act actually does? All it does is raise the age limit from 18 to 21 for certain purchases of firearms, expand the definition of straw purchase and prohibit straw purchases, ban the sale of bump stocks, which is something Trump did by executive order and ATF regulations, and a few other things. But the act proposed in the video is not banning firearms purchases per se.

Here is HR 7910

I know what the representative said, but you really need to read the bill here and then get back to me.

 

I never made the argument that Congress is banning assault weapons. I only said not to sell firearms for those who have severe mental distress or disorder such as paranoid schizophrenia or someone exhibiting suicidal thoughts. This is not something at the federal level that is verified, although "asked" when you submit your information for background checks while only a few states, like Massachusetts, provide the verification. But the point was that "shall not be infringed" is not absolute and I was using suicides as an example.

Furthermore, you cannot legislate certain things. I did stated that the blame is with the "pro-gun culture" crowd but I never made the argument to legislate such things. This is a social issue that has to be dealt with like peer pressure or something similar.

 

According to FBI stats rifles of all types accounted for 300-500; just slightly behind hands, "fists and feet" , or "hammers, kitchen utensils and miscellaneous objects.

 

Ok but I responded above to your specific point "Change the culture of the pro-gun crowd and we will see a definite drop in mass casualty events." You definitely are trying to scapegoat a "pro-gun crowd" for mass murder and that's not going to wash.

How about we change what we can, like put more money in our schools to protect kids and staff, put more resources into mental health, and try to strengthen red flag laws"? The real issues are that these nut cases are slipping through the cracks and that's what we need to stop.

 

Where in Hades did I mention AR rifles in my post?

You may want to read what I wrote, not what you thought I wrote bud

 

Gun registration is a bad idea and is counter to the spirit of 2A. How would you do it?

I haven't addressed what to do about mentally troubled people because, IMHO, it's outside BGC's. But, since you bring it up, we need to do more for the mentally ill; not less, like we've been doing for over a generation. Many of the homeless people in America would have been housed in a mental facility a generation ago. Now they're on the street with no care at all. We need to take a look at what these money saving measures are costing us.

When I was in school we were assigned a student counselor that helped make sure we got the most out of school and helped us plan our future education and careers. We should double down on school counselors, and have them be the front line in discovering and helping mentally ill teenagers. Mental health professionals should be the primary individuals to add people to the mental health part of the BGC database. We should make it easy and without repercussion, though individuals should also have rights and a mechanism to get off the database.

Anyone that ends up in court over violent acts would/could be placed on the BGC database buy the judge, again without repercussion to the judge, but also a mechanism for the individual to challenge being placed there.

From my original post on this:

Expanding the universal BGC isn't going to be perfect and will need tweaking, it doesn't mean it cant be a better more useful tool to stop gun violence.

 

Yes I said change the culture of the "pro-gun crowd" but I did not say legislate such change.

Schools today, the new schools today and those that are upgraded are already secure enough, even the Uvalde School in which the local police falsely accused the teacher of "propping open the door." Furthermore, in Texas, we have the ability to arm teachers. Armed teachers sound nice, but no teacher is going to leave their kids in a classroom unprotected in order to "play hero" by seeking out the gunman. Again, allegedly, there were a few armed teachers at the elementary school, but they did their jobs as teachers and kept the kids safe in the classroom. What really caused the tragedy was two things: the kid was bullied, had anger issues, and thought that those anger issues could be solved with a firearm, aka the culture of the pro-gun crowd of showing "how tough a person can be" argument. The second was failure of the police to properly respond. They waited for 40 to 60 minutes, at least, before CBP tactical unit went in and eliminated the perpetrator.

What I don't want is the school to become armed camps because that would be not productive to kids, any kid from 5 to 18, from learning in an environment where they can be protected by staff and other mechanisms. We need to tackle the root causes, not the political propaganda by both sides here.

 

You're position clearly is to try to brand anyone against gun violence as an over reacting gun grabber.
I disagree that I exaggerated when I said;:

Just calling your cards as I see them.

 

I didn't post an opinion. I posted the actual numbers. If you think the numbers reflect people against guns is overreaching, so do I.

 

No.... you really need to listen to this man here and then get back to me.... they will abolish the filibuster, and expand the Supreme Court... you missed that part...

So your Protect Our Kids Act has nothing to do with guns coming across the border.. an 18 year old can handle a gun in the military and shoot people but not allowed to shoot coyotes. Make it a crime to buy an AR-15 or similar gun until you’re 21.... Ban the sale of all magazines that hold over 10 rounds (... your "and a few other things.")... Mandate that you lock up your firearms 24/7...

And yet once again.... criminals don't care about your laws.... they will get a gun and shoot someone whether we like it or not..

And yes your great messiah is calling for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines..."overwhelming majority of the American people believe" per Joe.

 

I never mentioned over reacting; you did. Numbers are great, until they trivialize the death of a loved one.

 

But you can't

This is a thread about gun violence. Try and keep up

Not what the OP is about
Try and keep up

Deflection. Has nothing to do with the OP
Try again

Deflection, has nothing to do with the OP
Off Topic
Try again

Deflection. Has nothing to do with the OP
Try again

Deflection. Has nothing to do with the OP
Try again

Deflection. Has nothing to do with the OP
Try again

Deflection. Has nothing to do with the OP
Try again

Deflection. Has nothing to do with the OP
Try again

Deflection. Has nothing to do with the OP
Try again

Deflection. Has nothing to do with the OP
Try again

 

So you want to make it even more expensive, despite it not having prevented or reduced and crime.

 

What? lol

You were saying

Not what the OP is about
Try again

 

You're not making any sense. The OP is about trivializing gun crime.

 

And, tor the most part, it's NOT the "pro-gun crowd" that's doing the damage. Honest, law-abide citizens are not the ones shooting up schools, churches, or grocery stores; Nor are they aren't NRA members. If we want to reduces gun deaths we need to put more effort on the crooks, gangsters and other slime, who accord for eight to ten times the number "assault weapons" do.
But those kinds of actions don't produce the big headlines certain politicians want.