How do AR-15's compare with the muskets in 1776? Are they better?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.

“Built for combat” — what does that even mean? No military on earth uses AR15 or any other semiautomatic rifle as a “combat” weapon.

The AR-15 is similar in function and design to the M16. Same ammunition, same box magazines that can be swapped out quickly. The main difference between the military version and the civilian version is that the military version can be fired in burst mode, up to three rounds with one trigger pull.

For the last couple of decades the American military has trained conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in semi-automatic mode instead - one bullet per trigger pull - instead of burst mode in nearly all shooting situations. It’s more accurate, and more lethal.

What that means is that mass shooters with AR-15s have firepower that is functionally equivalent to the military. There was a video analysis of a Florida school shooting that showed the gunman firing up to one and a half rounds per second. That’s a faster clip than the military, which trains soldiers to fire at a sustained rate of 12-15 rounds per minute, or about one every 4-5 seconds.

So far, nobody’s been able to give any real world justification for why a civilian needs that kind of firepower, as opposed to a rifle or handgun for self defense.

“Burst mode” is ancient history and was abandoned as adversely effecting accuracy and tactically unhelpful. Please try to keep up. M16’s are fully automatic — machine guns — AR15’s are not. The reason soldiers are trained to fire at a moderate pace is to conserve ammunition and actually hit what they’re shooting at — which the shooter in the instant case clearly did very poorly at given the number of injured versus the rounds fired.

You just restated what the PP said, speaking of having trouble keeping up.

No, PP insisted M16’s are burst fire, but they no longer are and have not been for some time.

PP correctly observed that deliberate and paced single shots tend to be more accurate than automatic fire, but then focused on the (higher) maximum semiautomatic rate of fire mechanically possible, without addressing the corresponding diminution of accuracy.

Speaking of having trouble with reading comprehension.

If burst mode no longer exists, that just further reinforces the PP’s point that AR-15’s and M16s are functionally similar and that it’s accurate to compare them to military-grade weapons. Do you need subtitles?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.

“Built for combat” — what does that even mean? No military on earth uses AR15 or any other semiautomatic rifle as a “combat” weapon.

The AR-15 is similar in function and design to the M16. Same ammunition, same box magazines that can be swapped out quickly. The main difference between the military version and the civilian version is that the military version can be fired in burst mode, up to three rounds with one trigger pull.

For the last couple of decades the American military has trained conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in semi-automatic mode instead - one bullet per trigger pull - instead of burst mode in nearly all shooting situations. It’s more accurate, and more lethal.

What that means is that mass shooters with AR-15s have firepower that is functionally equivalent to the military. There was a video analysis of a Florida school shooting that showed the gunman firing up to one and a half rounds per second. That’s a faster clip than the military, which trains soldiers to fire at a sustained rate of 12-15 rounds per minute, or about one every 4-5 seconds.

So far, nobody’s been able to give any real world justification for why a civilian needs that kind of firepower, as opposed to a rifle or handgun for self defense.

The public has had access to rifles that are capable of that level of sustained fire for over a century. The AR15 itself is over 60 years old. And despite these types of rifles being widely available (and without any sort of paperwork whatsoever prior to 1968), the phenomenon of mass shootings using them is a relatively new thing.

Semiautomatic rifles with removable magazines have been around since at least 1921. AR15’s themselves have been around since 1960. So what has changed? What other factors and variables have changed? Because the guns haven’t. They’ve been around more than a century.

There are other factors at work here. And focusing only on the rifles is the equivalent of a drunk searching for his missing wallet under a streetlight because he can see better there, rather than in the dark alley where he actually lost the wallet.

What changed? People actually started buying them.

Before the late 80s, most people didn’t even know you could own an AR-15. Colt, who bought the manufacturing rights from Armalite in 1959, tried to market it to civilians but the reception was lukewarm. Many people thought it was ugly, expensive, and clunky. It had a low profile among gun enthusiasts. The main market was law enforcement and survivalists. Sales were flat.

Then in 1989, Patrick Edward Purdy used an AR-15 to kill 5 and wound 29 in a schoolyard in Stockton, California, and the gun became an overnight celebrity.

Colt was so horrified by the massacre, they suspended sales for an entire year. (See, it can be done). Once sales resumed, suddenly it was a very popular item. Since then, sales have reliably increased after every mass shooting. The gun lobby has an obvious economic incentive not to prevent them.

Sawed off shotguns, machine guns, 3D printed plastic guns, and hand grenades have stringent restrictions on their use. Why not allow them too? What’s the difference?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.

“Built for combat” — what does that even mean? No military on earth uses AR15 or any other semiautomatic rifle as a “combat” weapon.

The AR-15 is similar in function and design to the M16. Same ammunition, same box magazines that can be swapped out quickly. The main difference between the military version and the civilian version is that the military version can be fired in burst mode, up to three rounds with one trigger pull.

For the last couple of decades the American military has trained conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in semi-automatic mode instead - one bullet per trigger pull - instead of burst mode in nearly all shooting situations. It’s more accurate, and more lethal.

What that means is that mass shooters with AR-15s have firepower that is functionally equivalent to the military. There was a video analysis of a Florida school shooting that showed the gunman firing up to one and a half rounds per second. That’s a faster clip than the military, which trains soldiers to fire at a sustained rate of 12-15 rounds per minute, or about one every 4-5 seconds.

So far, nobody’s been able to give any real world justification for why a civilian needs that kind of firepower, as opposed to a rifle or handgun for self defense.

“Burst mode” is ancient history and was abandoned as adversely effecting accuracy and tactically unhelpful. Please try to keep up. M16’s are fully automatic — machine guns — AR15’s are not. The reason soldiers are trained to fire at a moderate pace is to conserve ammunition and actually hit what they’re shooting at — which the shooter in the instant case clearly did very poorly at given the number of injured versus the rounds fired.

You just restated what the PP said, speaking of having trouble keeping up.

No, PP insisted M16’s are burst fire, but they no longer are and have not been for some time.

PP correctly observed that deliberate and paced single shots tend to be more accurate than automatic fire, but then focused on the (higher) maximum semiautomatic rate of fire mechanically possible, without addressing the corresponding diminution of accuracy.

Speaking of having trouble with reading comprehension.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.

“Built for combat” — what does that even mean? No military on earth uses AR15 or any other semiautomatic rifle as a “combat” weapon.

The AR-15 is similar in function and design to the M16. Same ammunition, same box magazines that can be swapped out quickly. The main difference between the military version and the civilian version is that the military version can be fired in burst mode, up to three rounds with one trigger pull.

For the last couple of decades the American military has trained conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in semi-automatic mode instead - one bullet per trigger pull - instead of burst mode in nearly all shooting situations. It’s more accurate, and more lethal.

What that means is that mass shooters with AR-15s have firepower that is functionally equivalent to the military. There was a video analysis of a Florida school shooting that showed the gunman firing up to one and a half rounds per second. That’s a faster clip than the military, which trains soldiers to fire at a sustained rate of 12-15 rounds per minute, or about one every 4-5 seconds.

So far, nobody’s been able to give any real world justification for why a civilian needs that kind of firepower, as opposed to a rifle or handgun for self defense.

“Burst mode” is ancient history and was abandoned as adversely effecting accuracy and tactically unhelpful. Please try to keep up. M16’s are fully automatic — machine guns — AR15’s are not. The reason soldiers are trained to fire at a moderate pace is to conserve ammunition and actually hit what they’re shooting at — which the shooter in the instant case clearly did very poorly at given the number of injured versus the rounds fired.

You just restated what the PP said, speaking of having trouble keeping up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.

“Built for combat” — what does that even mean? No military on earth uses AR15 or any other semiautomatic rifle as a “combat” weapon.

The AR-15 is similar in function and design to the M16. Same ammunition, same box magazines that can be swapped out quickly. The main difference between the military version and the civilian version is that the military version can be fired in burst mode, up to three rounds with one trigger pull.

For the last couple of decades the American military has trained conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in semi-automatic mode instead - one bullet per trigger pull - instead of burst mode in nearly all shooting situations. It’s more accurate, and more lethal.

What that means is that mass shooters with AR-15s have firepower that is functionally equivalent to the military. There was a video analysis of a Florida school shooting that showed the gunman firing up to one and a half rounds per second. That’s a faster clip than the military, which trains soldiers to fire at a sustained rate of 12-15 rounds per minute, or about one every 4-5 seconds.

So far, nobody’s been able to give any real world justification for why a civilian needs that kind of firepower, as opposed to a rifle or handgun for self defense.

The public has had access to rifles that are capable of that level of sustained fire for over a century. The AR15 itself is over 60 years old. And despite these types of rifles being widely available (and without any sort of paperwork whatsoever prior to 1968), the phenomenon of mass shootings using them is a relatively new thing.

Semiautomatic rifles with removable magazines have been around since at least 1921. AR15’s themselves have been around since 1960. So what has changed? What other factors and variables have changed? Because the guns haven’t. They’ve been around more than a century.

There are other factors at work here. And focusing only on the rifles is the equivalent of a drunk searching for his missing wallet under a streetlight because he can see better there, rather than in the dark alley where he actually lost the wallet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.

“Built for combat” — what does that even mean? No military on earth uses AR15 or any other semiautomatic rifle as a “combat” weapon.

The AR-15 is similar in function and design to the M16. Same ammunition, same box magazines that can be swapped out quickly. The main difference between the military version and the civilian version is that the military version can be fired in burst mode, up to three rounds with one trigger pull.

For the last couple of decades the American military has trained conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in semi-automatic mode instead - one bullet per trigger pull - instead of burst mode in nearly all shooting situations. It’s more accurate, and more lethal.

What that means is that mass shooters with AR-15s have firepower that is functionally equivalent to the military. There was a video analysis of a Florida school shooting that showed the gunman firing up to one and a half rounds per second. That’s a faster clip than the military, which trains soldiers to fire at a sustained rate of 12-15 rounds per minute, or about one every 4-5 seconds.

So far, nobody’s been able to give any real world justification for why a civilian needs that kind of firepower, as opposed to a rifle or handgun for self defense.

“Burst mode” is ancient history and was abandoned as adversely effecting accuracy and tactically unhelpful. Please try to keep up. M16’s are fully automatic — machine guns — AR15’s are not. The reason soldiers are trained to fire at a moderate pace is to conserve ammunition and actually hit what they’re shooting at — which the shooter in the instant case clearly did very poorly at given the number of injured versus the rounds fired. (Is it even known if he hit a single target with the AR15 as opposed to the shotgun and handgun he used?). That said, the capability of full automatic fire makes the AR15 dramatically different than the M16 or any other modern military rifle.

As has been repeatedly discussed in this and countless other threads, rights are not measured in “needs” (especially as might be determined by a third party). Further, the “firepower” you attribute to the AR15 is hardly unique — any self loading weapon (including most current handguns, the millions of WWII rifles previously mentioned and plenty of examples of Grandpa’s old deer rifle) can do the same. You also do not seem to comprehend the destructive power of shotguns or the rapidity with which they can be operated.

Bringing us back again to “What changed, given that there have long been millions of guns in circulation that will do anything the AR15 can do — plus a huge number of AR15’s), so that demented minds suddenly decided it was OK to kill people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.

“Built for combat” — what does that even mean? No military on earth uses AR15 or any other semiautomatic rifle as a “combat” weapon.

The AR-15 is similar in function and design to the M16. Same ammunition, same box magazines that can be swapped out quickly. The main difference between the military version and the civilian version is that the military version can be fired in burst mode, up to three rounds with one trigger pull.

For the last couple of decades the American military has trained conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in semi-automatic mode instead - one bullet per trigger pull - instead of burst mode in nearly all shooting situations. It’s more accurate, and more lethal.

What that means is that mass shooters with AR-15s have firepower that is functionally equivalent to the military. There was a video analysis of a Florida school shooting that showed the gunman firing up to one and a half rounds per second. That’s a faster clip than the military, which trains soldiers to fire at a sustained rate of 12-15 rounds per minute, or about one every 4-5 seconds.

So far, nobody’s been able to give any real world justification for why a civilian needs that kind of firepower, as opposed to a rifle or handgun for self defense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Handgun attacks are less deadly.

It amazes me that DCUMers forget the deadliest school shooting was at Virginia Tech on April 16th, 2007. The deranged shooter used two pistols.

Anonymous wrote:The data shows a steep and immediate rise in shooting deaths after the ban expired, and long after the creation of the 24 hour news cycle.

Rifle murders did not increase after the 1994 assault weapon ban sunset. They went down, and stayed down. The FBI posts yearly comprehensive crime statistics.

On your first point, the shooter had a documented history of severe mental health issues, including suicidal ideation and disturbing behavior. Yet critical information was never shared between mental health professionals, campus officials, and law enforcement due to weak laws and broken communications, such as a lack of effective red-flag laws. Your guy Trump even repealed red-flag provisions put in place to try and prevent another Virginia Tech. Likewise, it's a significant failing to have a broken system that does not allow law enforcement to have a persistent, searchable database tracking gun transfers to help identify the straw buyers and bad actors who are funneling vast numbers of guns to gangs and criminals. We do indeed need quite a few reforms even just to allow "the existing laws on the books" to be more effectively enforced. Doing nothing is absolutely not an answer. We need solutions and as has been repeatedly been pointed out to you, if you aren't part of that solution then you are part of the problem. You are complicit in gun violence.

On your second point you're being misleading. Mass shooting deaths and frequency increased sharply after the 2004 expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban - Gun massacres (6+ killed) rose by 183%, and deaths rose by 239% in the decade after the ban. Assault-style rifles were used in many of the deadliest shootings post-ban, including Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, and Uvalde.

Anonymous wrote: Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

The FBI Uniform Crime Report is an unbiased source of information. Here is what it shows for rifle homicides from 1994-2004 and then 2005-2015.

1994: 757 rifle homicides
1995: 654 rifle homicides
1996: 561 rifle homicides
1997: 638 rifle homicides
1998: 548 rifle homicides
1999: 400 rifle homicides
2000: 411 rifle homicides
2001: 386 rifle homicides
2002: 488 rifle homicides
2003: 392 rifle homicides
2004: 403 rifle homicides
(Total rifle homicides = 5,638)

2005: 445 rifle homicides
2006: 438 rifle homicides
2007: 453 rifle homicides
2008: 380 rifle homicides
2009: 351 rifle homicides
2010: 367 rifle homicides
2011: 332 rifle homicides
2012: 298 rifle homicides
2013: 285 rifle homicides
2014: 258 rifle homicides
2015: 215 rifle homicides
(Total rifle homicides = 3,822)

Delta = 1,816 rifle homicides

Did the assault weapon ban work?

Anonymous wrote:- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

At least half of the U.S. gun deaths each year are suicides. That’s a handgun issue, as are accidental shootings, and domestic violence shootings, and inner city mass shootings.

Anonymous wrote:- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

If you believe guns are trafficked from states with normal laws into gun control states why wouldn’t the same thing happen with magazines?

Anonymous wrote:- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

You’ve identified the crux of the problem. If there is a new assault weapon ban without confiscation of both the rifles and magazines very little will change. At the time of the 94 ban it’s estimated there were between 1M-2M in the U.S. Now there are over 25M and rising rapidly.

Anonymous wrote:- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

Your words from below: “Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall”

You don’t seem to care about raw numbers, like the deaths of Black Americans. Most inner city mass shootings are committed with handguns. The new weapon of choice are Glock pistols with 3D printed “Glock switches” that make them fully automatic.

A large percentage of mass shootings are domestic violence related and aren’t committed with rifles.

Anonymous wrote:- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Thanks for admitting that an assault weapon ban is an attempt to address a fraction of a fraction of gun homicides.

I already disproved your “flatly false” assertion above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.

“Built for combat” — what does that even mean? No military on earth uses AR15 or any other semiautomatic rifle as a “combat” weapon.

“Military-style.” Again, what does that even mean? Cosmetic features somehow make a firearm more deadly?

There have been rifles that were the functional equivalent of the AR15 (including magazine capacity) since at least the 1930’s if not before. Millions of rifles functionally equivalent to the AR15 (including magazine capacity) were built during WWII and surplussed off for pocket money thereafter. The AR15 itself has been around since the 1960’s. With all those rifles around (many of which actually were expressly “built for combat” and military issue during WWII and after), there were none of these shootings until fairly recently, and even with the ones that have occurred the number of firearms misused is minuscule in terms of the number that exist.

It’s not the AR15 and “similar” weapons. It is something else that has convinced a diseased and despicable subset of deluded people that it is somehow OK for them to gravely harm other people with whatever means are at their disposal. That subset can choose and has chosen other means when it suited them.

You're either misleading or are missing the point. The preference for military-patterned rifles among mass shooters isn’t just some matter of cosmetics. It’s a mix of psychological appeal and tactical efficiency. Their choice of military-style design isn’t just aesthetic or cosmetic, it evokes their fantasies of power and control, feeding into the shooter’s desire for notoriety and dominance. Additionally, these weapons are often chosen deliberately for their low recoil, high accuracy, and rapid-fire capability, making them ideal for inflicting maximum casualties quickly. While traditional hunting rifles can be just as lethal, they don’t carry the same symbolic weight or ergonomic advantages that make AR-15s the recurring choice in America’s deadliest mass shootings.

Yes, semi-automatic rifles have existed for decades, but the surge in mass shootings coincides with the rise of AR-15s as cultural icons, the proliferation of high-capacity magazines, and the copycat psychology fueled by media coverage. Saying “it’s not the weapon” ignores the reality: when intent meets a tool designed for efficient killing, the results are catastrophic. Assault-style rifles aren’t the sole cause, but they’re a proven, consistent accelerant, and pretending otherwise is a dodge from the data and realities out here in American communities torn apart by these shootings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.

“Built for combat” — what does that even mean? No military on earth uses AR15 or any other semiautomatic rifle as a “combat” weapon.

“Military-style.” Again, what does that even mean? Cosmetic features somehow make a firearm more deadly?

There have been rifles that were the functional equivalent of the AR15 (including magazine capacity) since at least the 1930’s if not before. Millions of rifles functionally equivalent to the AR15 (including magazine capacity) were built during WWII and surplussed off for pocket money thereafter. The AR15 itself has been around since the 1960’s. With all those rifles around (many of which actually were expressly “built for combat” and military issue during WWII and after), there were none of these shootings until fairly recently, and even with the ones that have occurred the number of firearms misused is minuscule in terms of the number that exist.

It’s not the AR15 and “similar” weapons. It is something else that has convinced a diseased and despicable subset of deluded people that it is somehow OK for them to gravely harm other people with whatever means are at their disposal. That subset can choose and has chosen other means when it suited them.

If they're not built for combat, then how are all the military cosplayers going to fight off "government tyranny"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Handgun attacks are less deadly.

It amazes me that DCUMers forget the deadliest school shooting was at Virginia Tech on April 16th, 2007. The deranged shooter used two pistols.

And Pulse was even deadlier. 49 victims. Sig Sauer MCX automatic rifle.

Oh wait. Las Vegas was even deadlier. 60 deaths. 14 AR-15s with bump stocks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.

“Built for combat” — what does that even mean? No military on earth uses AR15 or any other semiautomatic rifle as a “combat” weapon.

“Military-style.” Again, what does that even mean? Cosmetic features somehow make a firearm more deadly?

There have been rifles that were the functional equivalent of the AR15 (including magazine capacity) since at least the 1930’s if not before. Millions of rifles functionally equivalent to the AR15 (including magazine capacity) were built during WWII and surplussed off for pocket money thereafter. The AR15 itself has been around since the 1960’s. With all those rifles around (many of which actually were expressly “built for combat” and military issue during WWII and after), there were none of these shootings until fairly recently, and even with the ones that have occurred the number of firearms misused is minuscule in terms of the number that exist.

It’s not the AR15 and “similar” weapons. It is something else that has convinced a diseased and despicable subset of deluded people that it is somehow OK for them to gravely harm other people with whatever means are at their disposal. That subset can choose and has chosen other means when it suited them.

Anonymous wrote:Handgun attacks are less deadly.

It amazes me that DCUMers forget the deadliest school shooting was at Virginia Tech on April 16th, 2007. The deranged shooter used two pistols.

Anonymous wrote:The data shows a steep and immediate rise in shooting deaths after the ban expired, and long after the creation of the 24 hour news cycle.

Rifle murders did not increase after the 1994 assault weapon ban sunset. They went down, and stayed down. The FBI posts yearly comprehensive crime statistics.