Explain the Focus on AR-15s and Mass Shootings

Democrats, or anti-gun people, seem to have a hard on for getting rid of the least deadly gun in America. Also, they want to keep the focus on the events that kill the least amount of people. What is the reasoning for this? They seem to want to keep the focus off of the main killers like gang violence, black on black violence, and drug related violence. They prefer to look the other way while fentnyl floods across the border along with criminals and terrorists. But when it comes to the least deadly stuff, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!
I honestly don't know why. Please explain.

 

Because its obviously not the least.

 

More people die on ladders annually.

 

1) read the Josh Sugarmann propaganda from the late 80s and the MSM deliberately telling people those things are the same as machine guns
2) to set a precedent-if they can ban guns rarely used in crime that have clear militia purpose then they can ban handguns
3) AR 15s are far more likely to be owned by white conservative gun rights advocates than say handguns

 

handguns are used in 70 times more murders.

this is a fairly moderate slightly left leaning article
https://www.propublica.org/article/why-do-democrats-keep-trying-to-ban-the-guns-that-look-scary

 

And when people have photos with guns its usually them holding an AR-15

 

what relevance does that have

 

We have to follow the rest of the world.
Only bad people like guns.
The criminals want easier victims.

take ur pick

The AR is just the next lowest hanging fruit on the 'ban all guns incrimentally' tree. Rest assured someone will get shot after we get rid of all the ARs and they'll demand we ban that one too 'but only that one'

and so on and so forth until we're disarmed. Well, until most of us are disarmed. The rich, well connected and friends of the govt will always be able to get their 'permits'...

 

If ar's are such useless weapons then why do you guys fight so hard to keep them?

 

Oh well that explains a lot.... That must prove everything you're claiming without any other evidence...all except for being totally wrong in a failed generalization

 

It’s their ability not only to discharge numerous rounds very quickly but also the tremendous damage each bullet does.

While I don’t have one several friends do and they all agree they don’t really have a use outside of sport (one exception that uses his for “home defense”)

When you look at mass shootings the weapon used is almost always the same with a few exceptions
http://www.norvillerogers.com/the-real-facts-on-weapons-used-in-mass-shootings/

Not to mention when the “assault rifle” ban expired the amount of these types of incidents went up substantially.

 

how do you possibly come up with that bogus claim? WE are saying they are rarely used in crime and from that you pretend that we said that makes them useless weapons. That's as silly as saying because so few speeding tickets go to McClaren sports cars, they are slow

 

1) they don't shoot any faster than any other semi which is what over half the firearms sold today are
2) the bullets are no more damaging than most other rifle rounds and actually less damaging than most deer rounds or shotgun rounds
3) that the people you hang around with means nothing. It's like saying all my friends play tennis, they don't have much use for squash rackets

 

Other than sport and defense, what other uses are there for weaponry? Like, how is that different from a pistol or a shotgun?

 

one of the occupational requirements of being an anti gun poster, seems to be a paucity of understanding of how most guns are used or how they work

 

Gang killers drug dealers can defend themselves they are armed. Drug users are not forced to take drugs it is a choice. Children have to go to school, cannot fight back, other mass shooting victums are usualln unarmed. Do you admit there is a difference there? And yet, you feel something shouldn't be done. It makes no sense that we can accept that.

 

Are you really that uninformed? More people are killed by blunt objects and knives than by semiautomatic assault weapons year in and year out.

 

And to date most mass shooting are done with pistols.

 

Yes, banning all guns entirely is the Democrat goal. That is part of their program to impose a one party police state with them completely in charge. They do things incrementally because that's the way to sell it to the moderates.

I guarantee you that the progressives here will either ignore my first sentence, or they will call it extreme. They will never deny, however, that banning all guns is their ultimate goal. That would be too honest and would stymie their overall objectives.

 

Not sure where you got your statistics, but that simply is not true.

 

Oh, well if that is true nevermind it makes mass killings OK.

 

Really?? Is that the best you can do?

 

Yet another one who doesn't seem to understand the difference between an accident by a person who chose to climb a ladder vs innocent people being killed due to a heinous deliberate act against them.

 

Who says they are worthless? In fact the left tends to make the claim that the "only thing ARs are good for is war". Did you notice what law enforcement was carrying when they entered the school and ultimately shot the Tennessee shooter? ARs are good for so many things. The point was made that they are NOT commonly used by criminals. Fewer people die from rifle fire of ANY type than die fro people using their hands and feet as weapons. The VAST MAJORITY if homicides and crimes where firearms are used are handguns. The majority (approx 65/35%) of recorded mass killings since 1982 involve handguns, shotguns, or any weapon OTHER THAN ARs.

 

Can you list some uses of an AR outside of sporting and mass shootings?

Why are these weapons so favored with these insane people?