True, mostly those are cases where it’s a GSW death and they didnt recover the gun (or even the bullet). Some are 'zip guns" and weird stuff, like a pipe used to fire a 12ga shell. In some cases, the podunk PD didnt report it right.
But let us take out the zip guns, pipe shotgun traps, etc. Say that leaves 1800. Extrapolate:
of the 8,454 gun murders, 5,782 were handguns, 285 rifles. Or 3%. You’d be safe in saying 3% of the type not stated were rifles or another 54. The chance that all 1800 were rifles is exactly zero.
Sure it is. The analogy is obvious: you are willing to use a different framework to understand the meaning of the First Amendment than you use to understand the Second.
This analogy fails, because you’re correct that the history of computing has little relevance to digital copyright law. But understanding firearms history is relevant to arguments about what the Second Amendment meant at the time it was adopted. And that, in turn, is arguably necessary to draft gun laws that are not constitutionally infirm.
To the contrary, I regard the necessary changes as being blocked by your ilk, and thus feel no shame whatsoever at their failure to be adopted. Virtually every mass shooting has happened in an arena where you – and I use the pronoun in its indefinite sense – have crafted a gun-free zone. You are apparently honestly baffled that the nascent mass murderers are not dissuaded by the gun-free zones. You do, however, persuade the victims to disarm themselves, so nice going there.
More accurately, there just isn’t any common ground between your position and mine. “Common sense” and “reasonable” are out the window. I grew up outside “gun culture,” but not outside of its effects. I don’t know the difference between an Uzi and a Mac-10, but I think I have an informed opinion about whether I want either in my home.
To me, the reaction of many gun enthusiasts to Sandy Hook and the like sounds a lot like “Hey, I’m sorry all those neighborhood toddlers keep disappearing and it breaks my heart, but no way am I giving up my beloved crocodiles!”
If I’m reading that chart correctly, if a single shooter had more than one weapon, a ban on certain weapon types gets credit for eliminating them all?
Who cares how many guns a single shooter had?
Also, as the article states, what the hell is a “high-capacity” magazine? Certainly not more than the gun was designed to use. Many handguns come with 14-17 round magazines standard. My semi-auto AK variant rifles came with 30-rounders. The entire premise of magazine capacity limits is that “bullets are bad, therefore fewer of them must be better, so we’ll pick an arbitrary lower number than we have now, then keep going until we get to zero.”
The ban on certain weapon types uses the same gradual approach. Do people really think somebody is say “I was going to commit a mass murder, but all I have are 20 ten-round mags, so I guess I won’t”? Except for the dupes, no. The ringleaders know full well that this is worthless - the plan is, like magazine capacity limits, to ban certain types of weapons now, then after that inevitbaly fails to have any effect, keep whittling until they’ve banned them all.
Take a look at the Cumbria shootings in England in 2010. An older guy with a double-barreled shotgun a .22 rimfire squirrel rifle shot 23 people, killing 12, over a period of seven hours. The problem isn’t what weapons the shooters have; it’s the weapons the defenseless victims don’t have.
One thing most all mass shootings have in common: they’re either over when the shooter decides he’s done and offs himself, or when people who can shoot back show up - whichever comes first. I prefer to take my chances with the second option.
Without trying to pick nits, I did say *consistently *supports. Citing Project Exile in the Brady Bill era is stretching that.
I am happy to be corrected that the NICS improvement amendment of 2007 will help prevent people with mental illnesses from purchasing firearms. Anything in the past 8 years to show the upward trajectory from bi-partisan support of the Brady Bill in 1997 and the NICS improvement act?
I would love to see a trend for the NRA supporting increased sanity and gun control.
Y’all might also want to update Wikipedia on Wayne LaPierre, where the opening introduction is: Wayne Robert LaPierre, Jr. (born November 8, 1948) is an American author and gun rights advocate. He is best known for his position as the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association and for his criticism of gun control policies.
Well, IMHO, a child accidentally shooting themselves with your unsecured weapon in your home sure as hell should be a crime. And/or could be sued in a civil court.
There is attractive nuisance laws. Kid climbs your locked and no trespassing fence to play in your pool or trampoline, and has an accident, you better have a lot of umbrella insurance…And someone in the military can chime in on how your weapon and responsibility is handled.
For point the second, I am consistently stating that the government should NOT be telling you how to secure your weapon. That said, you are then 100% responsible for it being secure. Someone “steals” your weapon and you don’t report it, it’s still on you until you report it. You report it, then you’re no longer responsible. Pretty straightforward.
All this harks back to, at least the way I was raised, being responsible for your weapon.
As expected, when provided with direct cites you simply dismiss them. Whatever information I link to is going to be ‘not enough’, and would take an absurd amount of time that I’m not going to spend anyway. Before someone says I’m being unfair…
I cited a bill from this year in my previous response to you. When you’re snarkily asking me for a cite and implying that none exists when I’ve already provided what it is that you’re asking for, it’s pretty clear how reasonable and rational of an argument you’re making.
I think it’s more like “Hey, I’m sorry those neighborhood kids keep getting abducted in automobiles, but no way am I giving up my car just because some criminal keeps using one to commit crimes.”
Look up the puckle gun. One of the first repeating firearms invented in 1718. The thought that repeating arms were not considered is ridiculous and only proves further your ignorance of the topic.
“By far the most common weapons used in these cases are semi-automatic handguns—the type of weapon also at the heart of the daily gun violence plaguing American communities.”
I appreciate the link as it supports exactly what I said.
I missed that one. Apologies, I stand corrected. I’m not going to get into a dick measuring contest with you on the number of times the NRA has supported some kind of weapons limitation versus the times the NRA has opposed. Thanks though because I won’t make hyperbolic comments about the NRA 100% never opposing a limitation again.
Sheesh, edited for clarity. I will write 100 times on the chalkboard “I won’t make hyperbolic comments that the NRA never ever supports a weapons law limitation”. In reality, the NRA has supported on at least 3 occasions in the past 25 years some type of control.
Never doubt the NRA is against Gun Control. But to them, things like Hunter safety courses (required in some states before you can get a license) and background checks arent *gun control. * They are shooter control. NRA has always backed “Guns dont kill people- people kill people” and that is true.
One hour of reading. I bet you spent several times that watching something on TV that you’d seen before in the last tw weeks.
Your ignorance on the topic is okay by me as long as you are content to limit yourself to deciding what you want in your home. Once you want to start crafting public policy, I expect you to have a good grounding in at least the basics of what you want to regulate. Your lot’s wearing its ignorance with sanctimonious pride has led to you blowing several opportunities you had in recent years to pass significant legislation. Instead, you strapped on your golf shoes and tramped all over your own peckers, via your nonsensical fixation on “assault weapons.”