Why do libs obsess over "assault rifles" when handgun deaths are so much more common?

Peridot said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What planet have you been on lately? Here, a primer for your education:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School..._United_States
Click to expand...

Hmmmm

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95379&page=1
Click to expand...

And since what you posted DOES NOT CHANGE THE INFORMATION I SOURCED REGARDING SCHOOL SHOOTING ONE IOTA, I'd say you're either not understanding what is being presented or you're just being stubborn not to conceded a point. Which is it? Hmmm?
 
Taichiliberal said:
And since what you posted DOES NOT CHANGE THE INFORMATION I SOURCED REGARDING SCHOOL SHOOTING ONE IOTA, I'd say you're either not understanding what is being presented or you're just being stubborn not to conceded a point. Which is it? Hmmm?
Click to expand...

So your original question of "how many people have to die?", which as I've shown is decreasing every year, was disingenuous and purely an appeal to emotion?
 
Peridot said:
So your original question of "how many people have to die?", which as I've shown is decreasing every year, was disingenuous and purely an appeal to emotion?
Click to expand...

As the chronology of the posts shows, school shootings are and have been continuous for the last ten years....the number of deaths fluctuate depending upon the situation, the perpetrator, etc. (5 in 2014, 10 in 2015, 6 died last year, 17 this year per Wikipedia).

You play word games: the OP clearly is in reference to the recent Florida school shooting where an assault rifle was used. But because I wrote "people" you try to divert from the obvious. Remember I wrote: So exactly how many school kids ( and people in general) have to get killed by these things before NRA flunkies realize that the almighty dollar just isn't worth it? What you are doing is ignoring these FACTS and trying to substitute OTHER STATS....why? To defend the selling of assault rifles? Beyond stock holders and manufacturers bottom line, who does that benefit? Surely not these kids in the last 10 years. So I ask again, how many have to die before folk like you concede that there is no necessity for these type of weapons in the civilian population?
 
Taichiliberal said:
As the chronology of the posts shows, school shootings are and have been continuous for the last ten years....the number of deaths fluctuate depending upon the situation, the perpetrator, etc. (5 in 2014, 10 in 2015, 6 died last year, 17 this year per Wikipedia).

You play word games: the OP clearly is in reference to the recent Florida school shooting where an assault rifle was used. But because I wrote "people" you try to divert from the obvious. Remember I wrote: So exactly how many school kids ( and people in general) have to get killed by these things before NRA flunkies realize that the almighty dollar just isn't worth it? What you are doing is ignoring these FACTS and trying to substitute OTHER STATS....why? To defend the selling of assault rifles? Beyond stock holders and manufacturers bottom line, who does that benefit? Surely not these kids in the last 10 years. So I ask again, how many have to die before folk like you concede that there is no necessity for these type of weapons in the civilian population?
Click to expand...

Fewer people die every year, including children, under the current system. So nothing new needs to be done, nor should be done.
 
Peridot said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As the chronology of the posts shows, school shootings are and have been continuous for the last ten years....the number of deaths fluctuate depending upon the situation, the perpetrator, etc. (5 in 2014, 10 in 2015, 6 died last year, 17 this year per Wikipedia).

You play word games: the OP clearly is in reference to the recent Florida school shooting where an assault rifle was used. But because I wrote "people" you try to divert from the obvious. Remember I wrote: So exactly how many school kids ( and people in general) have to get killed by these things before NRA flunkies realize that the almighty dollar just isn't worth it? What you are doing is ignoring these FACTS and trying to substitute OTHER STATS....why? To defend the selling of assault rifles? Beyond stock holders and manufacturers bottom line, who does that benefit? Surely not these kids in the last 10 years. So I ask again, how many have to die before folk like you concede that there is no necessity for these type of weapons in the civilian population?
Click to expand...


Fewer people die every year, including children, under the current system. So nothing new needs to be done, nor should be done.
Click to expand...

And yet the deaths of school kids by assault rifle waving nuts is on going....fluctuating from hi's and lows in the last ten years. A matter of fact, a matter of history whether you like it or not, and which makes your myopic parroting irrelevant. So in true NRA flunkie fashion, you do nothing in the name of profit and paranoid fear as the slaughter of innocents periodically (and with increased frequency) continues. Disgusting, but not unexpected. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And yet the deaths of school kids by assault rifle waving nuts is on going....fluctuating from hi's and lows in the last ten years. A matter of fact, a matter of history whether you like it or not, and which makes your myopic parroting irrelevant. So in true NRA flunkie fashion, you do nothing in the name of profit and paranoid fear as the slaughter of innocents periodically (and with increased frequency) continues. Disgusting, but not unexpected. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Billy is profiting off of the downward trend in annual gun-related deaths? That actually sounds noble, to me! :hand:
 
Nordberg said:
You should not have any weapons. If you feel unsafe and think .wrongly, that a gun will make you safer, you don't need to talk about it. But you talk about your arsenal regularly. They define who you are and it is ugly. You are defiant and dare anyone to take them away. Do you have problems with people trying to take your guns away/?if so, that is quite unusual. But you are your guns and that is sad.
Click to expand...

Where have I said I use those guns for safety? I said I have them. You've also said I shouldn't and since I do, it's proof you don't have the guts to try and take something YOU say I shouldn't have. Seems I'm the winner and you're the coward.

It's not a dare. It's an expectation of someone who says I shouldn't own something to do something about it. You do nothing but talk. Your faggot buddy archives called me a Barney Fife yet when expected to back up that claim, makes excuses just like you.
 
Last edited:
Sirthinksalot said:
It is well established that so called assault rifles are used in far fewer murders than hand guns. Why the obsession with "assault rifles"? Is it because they look scary? Or because mass shootings generate headlines and captivate public interest? Or most sadly, because you think a bunch of dead children is most useful to score cheap political points?



https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/...pon-myth.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
Click to expand...

You really should not have to think more than about three nanoseconds about this.

Most murders are committed are committed by abusive husbands, jealous lovers, warring dope addicts, drug dealers, aka, people who know each other. And handguns are the weapon of choice in those intimate and personal conflicts.

Are you aware that civilized society makes choices on what is important to us, what we want to prioritize?

I get that conservatives really do not care about mass executions of school children, and have never offered any tangible solutions to reduce them. If anything they are forever trying to weaken background checks, make it easier to buy guns, and fetishize military-style weapons and high capacity magazines.

But, I believe much of our civilized society finds the mass executions of school children in a place that is supposed to be safe for them, to be completely unacceptable. Relatively more unacceptable than a couple of drug dealers wasting each other, or a murderous spat between jealous lovers.
 
The left is not obsessing about semi automatic and automatic weapons. However they are weapons of war designed to kill as many people people in as short a time as possible. they are not suited for home defense and not allowed for hunting. Can you figure out what their purpose is, if you try. They are military weapons that have no use in a society, but mass killers are attracted to them. If you plan on killing a lot of people in a short time, they are suitable. Other than that, they have no use. They do not belong in civilian hands. They should not be sold.
 
Nordberg said:
The left is not obsessing about semi automatic and automatic weapons. However they are weapons of war designed to kill as many people people in as short a time as possible. they are not suited for home defense and not allowed for hunting. Can you figure out what their purpose is, if you try. They are military weapons that have no use in a society, but mass killers are attracted to them. If you plan on killing a lot of people in a short time, they are suitable. Other than that, they have no use. They do not belong in civilian hands. They should not be sold.
Click to expand...

Why are they unsuitable for home defense?
 
Nordberg said:
You can still do the job with hand guns. that should make you sleep better. But it is much easier and most killers select semi automatics. Wouldn't you? Isn't that what you plan on using? And no. I did not say that. make more shit up.
Click to expand...

Most handguns are also semi automatic. I think these killers are drawn to weapons that look dangerous, but will use other weapons if those were not available. I don't think the weapon is an inherent piece of the crime, they quite literally are the same action and ability of many weapons that don't look quite as dangerous. Broken brains is broken brains and if an Armalite weapon was not available the broken brain would use a different type of weapon.

The idea that banning just these weapons would stop this seems to be totally fabricated out of thin air when you realize that one of the most famous shootings of this type, Columbine here in CO, was perpetrated without them.
 
Jade Dragon said:
Please stop, or you'll give reason to their sides complaints. The side you advocate here shows, as much reasoning skills as the gun crazies. Not only shouldn't we get rid of guns in that vicious a manner, there is little way to accomplish it. We just need to get things off market that were insane to be put on the market to begin with. People don't need war arms, unless they are in combat in enemy countries, or God forbid if it happens and war is brought to us. Civilians shouldn't have access to such things.
Click to expand...

Are you sad because Nordbug is saying what you really feel?

He has exposed your side. Of course we know your true aim and you will always lose
 
Sirthinksalot said:
It is well established that so called assault rifles are used in far fewer murders than hand guns. Why the obsession with "assault rifles"? Is it because they look scary? Or because mass shootings generate headlines and captivate public interest? Or most sadly, because you think a bunch of dead children is most useful to score cheap political points?



https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/...pon-myth.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
Click to expand...


You are making stuff up just so you can look stupid again
 
Damocles said:
Most handguns are also semi automatic. I think these killers are drawn to weapons that look dangerous, but will use other weapons if those were not available. I don't think the weapon is an inherent piece of the crime, they quite literally are the same action and ability of many weapons that don't look quite as dangerous. Broken brains is broken brains and if an Armalite weapon was not available the broken brain would use a different type of weapon.

The idea that banning just these weapons would stop this seems to be totally fabricated out of thin air when you realize that one of the most famous shootings of this type, Columbine here in CO, was perpetrated without them.
Click to expand...


You really should get educated on this stuff before you post. The major weapon at Columbine was a TEC-9 which is considered an assault pistol.
 
katzgar said:
You really should get educated on this stuff before you post. The major weapon at Columbine was a TEC-9 which is considered an assault pistol.
Click to expand...

But not considered an AR-15, or even an assault rifle, which was the weapon we were talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top