If the goal is to save lives, then why wouldn't you focus on the 97% of shootings that aren't related to an AR-15 or rifle?
Today's mass shooting in the US
- Thread starter Rroff
- Start date
If the goal is to save lives, then why wouldn't you focus on the 97% of shootings that aren't related to an AR-15 or rifle?
So you're advocating far more rigorous control over access to all guns then?
I'm not advocating for any gun control, but if the goal for people who are is to save lives, then why is the focus only on the mass shootings that seemingly make headlines and not on the large number of gun deaths that don't involve an AR-15 and aren't a mass shooting?
Boys will be boys
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,618
I saw a quite incredible statistic, that between 1994 and 2004 when assault rifles such as the AR-15 were banned from sale, there was a 43% drop in mass shootings.
Since this ban expired in 2004, a 300% increase! And it was an almost immediate increase from 2004 (not immediately up to 300%, obviously)
Since this ban expired in 2004, a 300% increase! And it was an almost immediate increase from 2004 (not immediately up to 300%, obviously)
Last edited:
gUnS dOnT kIlL pEoPlE, pEoPlE kIlL pEoPlE!1
Brilliant. Highland Park shooter had threatened to kill his entire family. Police took away all the knives and a sword. At some point after, his Dad sponsored him to buy five guns. /Facepalm.
There were so many other signs here.
There were so many other signs here.
That is strange because pistols are used twice as much as rifles in "mass shootings", and rifles includes all variants of rifle, not just AR-15's. Apparently there is a link between some people owning AR-15's and other people using pistols to kill people.
Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2024 | Statista
Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.
www.statista.com
Just to correct the mistakes there -
1. This is semantics but Assault Rifles are select fire capable i.e. able to fire fully automatic, whilst the AR-15 is a semi-automatic only rifle.
2. Only newly built AR-15's were banned, ones made before 1994 were still legal to be sold under "grandfather rights" so there was still lots of AR-15s being sold in the US.
3. 43% drop in mass shootings between '94 and '04 - not according to FBI (a lot of data to trawl through there, you have to collate it for each year). There was a big dip in the year 1994 but that dip disappeared and the numbers returned to pre '94 levels for the remaining 9 years of the ban with a big spike in '99.
However the rest is broadly right, since '04 to'14 the rate increased fairly slowly, but from '14 onwards there's been a sharp increase (I blame Obama
)That is strange because pistols are used twice as much as rifles in "mass shootings", and rifles includes all variants of rifle, not just AR-15's. Apparently there is a link between some people owning AR-15's and other people using pistols to kill people.
Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2024 | Statista
Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.
The FBI currently puts Pistols as the weapon of choice, used in around 75% (+/-5% depending on the year) of all the murders involving a firearm since 1984 to 2021 (always between 70-80%).
Mass shootings (FBI definition is 4 or more people shot) also tend to be mostly pistol based, mainly due to the low number of people involved dragging gangland shootings into the stats, but those involving 10 or more people (what the layman would assume is a mass shooting) are mostly rifle based but very rare compared to the FBI definition.
Why do you believe there hasn't been many/any mass shootings in Switzerland, or the general number of gun deaths? Surely you can see that the issue is much wider than guns?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Because the Swiss aren't mentally unstable? Clearly if you have a population that can't be trusted with guns the logical thing to do would be remove those gun. I'm sure if mass shootings and gun deaths were around the US levels the Swiss would have outlawed them.
As for pistols over AR-15 style rifles, you can kill a lot of people far quicker and at longer distances with a rifle. Would Stephen Paddock have managed to kill 60 and wound 413 with pistols in 10 minutes? No he wouldn't, many of those people would still be alive and others would never have gone through the trauma of being shot. They are military weapons that shouldn't be near the public. I don't care about feral pigs, just use a bolt action and take a bit longer to get the job done.
Why do you think?
Not if you take away their guns, which is the whole point. The USA will continue to have mass shootings becuse there is always someone wanting to shoot up the world.
So you're simply questioning the strategy of others trying to make something which has no valid non military purpose difficult to obtain?
Why not start with that? It's an obvious one and you don't try to eat a whole elephant in one go. All you're doing is trying to deflect.
It does have a purpose, it's used for hunting and self defence, people also enjoy owning and firing AR-15's recreationally which is a valid purpose. If you want to ban guns then stop being cowards and state that as your intended goal and make arguments to that effect instead of banning guns because they look scary.
I think the cowards are the ones using a military grade weapon against wild pigs. I know they can be big and scary though.
If people enjoy shooting them let them (auto/semi-auto) do it within the confines of appropriately managed clubs.
Just for the record I’m not against guns, I had a .410 shotgun at about 11/12 and shot regularly. I’m actually in the process of applying for a license again at the moment but I can differentiate between what’s appropriate and whats not.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Its not a case of banning guns. Its putting in sensible restrictions and regulations. At present its pretty much a free for all. The way you post its like you'd be happy for fully automatic weapons to be available, people would like to own them for self defence, hunting and just owning and playing with them right? Why not machine guns? Why not miniguns? Why draw the line there? Grenade launchers? Mortars? Fully armed tanks? Fully armed attack helicopters? There always has to be a line, why not move the line back to something more sensible. No one needs AR-15 style rifles. No one needs extended mags or drum mags. Why not make every gun sale to have to be registered be it business or private. Make every owner have to have a licence and every gun be on that licence. Compulsory training to get a licence. No licences for violent crime convictions or people with known mental health issues. Make the minimum age be 21 rather than 18, you can buy an AR15 but can't buy a drink in many states
There are sensible changes that could be made that would lower the risks and save lives. Its like you don't give a toss about those people that are killed and their deaths are a price worth paying for Murica Freedom!