Cont: School shooting Florida - pt 2

[smartcooky]

Yep, I know that, just wanted CaptainHowdy to dig his hole deeper.

Oh, he needs no help with that. He is a veritable human Komatsu Excavator

 

[Meadmaker]

Here's another source with individual mass shooting incidents and the type of weapon used. Count the number of incidents where an "assault rifle" was used.

I'll be generous and let you define all shotguns and all semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles" even though nobody in their right mind would do so. I'll let you count every incident where a handgun was used with another weapon (a rifle, shotgun, knife, flamethrower, etc) as an "assault rifle" incident. Also, go ahead and count the incidents where the weapon was unknown as an "assault rifle" incident.

Now, count the number of incidents where only handguns were used. Add together the number of people who were killed in handgun only incidents and "assault rifle" incidents.

Now explain to me how it's obviously absurd to say that an "assault rifle" ban would not have helped all those people killed with handguns.

I don't know how to tell you this, but this post is bizarre.

Dave Rogers was pointing out that if you reduce the number of deaths by a small amount, it is still reduced. Your response has nothing at all to do with what Dave Rogers was saying. It doesn't even come close.

 

[alfaniner]

... Tomorrow just happens to be Hitler's birthday, which a sharp-eyed smearmonger has noticed and publicised. The bit about the walk out being "to celebrate Hitler's birthday" is a fairly obvious malicious lie.
...

Tomorrow is also a very significant date among a certain element of the population. Especially now since it's legal in many states. I imagine many young people may partake whether it's legal or not.

420 or 4/20 is code for pot smoking.

 

[johnny karate]

I doubt these kids even knew it was Hitler’s birthday. Why would they?

Meanwhile, the people making this ridiculous claim seem to have that information right at their fingertips.

Gosh, I wonder why...

 

[Steve]

It's only partly a lie. David Hogg has called for a nationwide walk-out tomorrow. Tomorrow just happens to be Hitler's birthday, which a sharp-eyed smearmonger has noticed and publicised. The bit about the walk out being "to celebrate Hitler's birthday" is a fairly obvious malicious lie.

So the lesson to take away from this is that anyone who does anything tomorrow is clearly a Nazi. Hopefully CaptainHowdy will refrain from "celebrating Hitler's birthday" by posting on this forum; if not, I suggest we all call him out on it.

Dave

Tomorrow is also a very significant date among a certain element of the population. Especially now since it's legal in many states. I imagine many young people may partake whether it's legal or not.

420 or 4/20 is code for pot smoking.

Nazis!!! Every last one of 'em!!!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I doubt these kids even knew it was Hitler’s birthday. Why would they?

Meanwhile, the people making this ridiculous claim seem to have that information right at their fingertips.

Gosh, I wonder why...

Show some sympathy, they've planned all year for the big day and then at the last minute these teenagers decide on a demonstration that clashes with their event!

 

[crescent]

Not only that, but did you hear about him calling for another nationwide student walkout to celebrate Hitler's birthday??!!? .

Cite or retract.

Another CT? Since Columbine happened on Hitler's B-day, any commemoration of Columbine gets painted as a celebration of that B-day?

 

[TJM]

Not only that, but did you hear about him calling for another nationwide student walkout to celebrate Hitler's birthday??!!? Thank God the Columbine people threw acid in his face and told him to sit in the corner over that one.

Poe. Gotta be.

 

[Meadmaker]

Poe. Gotta be.

I assumed trolling.

 

[3point14]

Poe. Gotta be.

If it's not then it's the worst case of 'being factually wrong and having one's arse handed to one multiple times, over and over and over again' that I've ever seen on these fora.

Has to be a Poe. No-one can maintain that level of cognitive dissonance in the face of overwhelming evidence for that long. Can they?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Nice bait-and-switch strawman argument. First of all, you were the one who introduced the term "assault rifle," and as I predicted you did so purely in order to get a Gotcha! by then quibbling about the definition of your own term. And secondly, you start by saying that a ban on "assault rifles" would not decrease the murder rate at all, a claim you're now trying to morph into one that banning "assault rifles" would not eliminate all killings with guns. Clearly your aim here is to use blatantly dishonest tactics to give the illusion of making a point; I just thought I should let you know just how predictable your lies are.

Your next move, by the way, is to pretend you never claimed banning "assault rifles" wouldn't reduce the number of murders, but that you simply meant that the reduction wouldn't be significant enough to be worth the cost. This, too, will be a lie.

Dave

No, I didn't introduce the term "assault rifle." I never said that banning assault rifles wouldn't reduce the murder rate at all. I was responding to Meadmaker's musings about what to call the different factions on the gun control issue where he said "I suppose "pro gun control" describes me fairly well, although even that could be easily misinterpreted (perhaps deliberately) to make it seem like I want to take away your handgun."

I was responding to his handgun reference. In forty nine mass shootings between 2009 and 2013, twenty seven of them were accomplished with only pistols. Shotguns were among the weapons used in seven of those mass shootings. An "assault rifle" was one of the weapons used in five of those mass shootings and in only three of them was an "assault rifle" the only weapon.

If you're to reduce mass shootings by eliminating a certain type of weapon, why would you stop at banning the type of weapon that was used in 6% of mass shootings while not touching the type of weapon that was used in 55% of the mass shootings?

I apologize for using the facts to counter your argument. That's not a bait and switch strawman.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

If it's not then it's the worst case of 'being factually wrong and having one's arse handed to one multiple times, over and over and over again' that I've ever seen on these fora.

Has to be a Poe. No-one can maintain that level of cognitive dissonance in the face of overwhelming evidence for that long. Can they?

Possibly just a tragic lack of empathy and basic compassion for fellow human beings?

 

[Meadmaker]

No, I didn't introduce the term "assault rifle." I never said that banning assault rifles wouldn't reduce the murder rate at all. I was responding to Meadmaker's musings about what to call the different factions on the gun control issue where he said "I suppose "pro gun control" describes me fairly well, although even that could be easily misinterpreted (perhaps deliberately) to make it seem like I want to take away your handgun."

I was responding to his handgun reference. In forty nine mass shootings between 2009 and 2013, twenty seven of them were accomplished with only pistols. Shotguns were among the weapons used in seven of those mass shootings. An "assault rifle" was one of the weapons used in five of those mass shootings and in only three of them was an "assault rifle" the only weapon.

If you're to reduce mass shootings by eliminating a certain type of weapon, why would you stop at banning the type of weapon that was used in 6% of mass shootings while not touching the type of weapon that was used in 55% of the mass shootings?

I apologize for using the facts to counter your argument. That's not a bait and switch strawman.

It seems odd that you would reply to me in a post that quoted Dave Rogers, but I don't want to get into a typical ISF debate about whether someone said something or not.

My answer to the question of why ban assault rifles but not handguns remains the same as when it was asked earlier. The US Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban handguns.

The actual question of whether or not handguns ought to be banned is a very complex topic, but because the Supreme Court says we can't do it, I consider such a proposal a non-starter, so even debating it isn't something I'm interested in at this time.

 

[Ambrosia]

You are misinformed. Where do you come up with this stuff? Some states (like CA or WA) require that any unlicensed buyer buy a gun through an FFL. In all states no individual can buy certain types of firearms unless they obtain a bkgd check and wait weeks or months for it.

I come up with this stuff by reading threads here and news articles from the BBC/UK facing press.

thanks for the corrections.

Maybe your definition of "rubber stamp" is different than mine,

seems more than likely.

but Walmart uses an FFL and a bkgd check to make a sale. Do you think that the bkgd check used by the feds is a hoax? Sounds like it. Or perhaps most people are not denied when applying for the bkgd check because the vast majority are not prohibited from owning a gun?

No I don't think the background check is a hoax. I just think it's woefully inadequate and I think a good deal more things ought to disqualify a person from being able to own a gun. Having a criminal record for example.

It boggles my mind that after Sandy Hook that the US voted down legislation to increase background checks. It seems to me to be a no brainer to want to keep guns out of the hands of people that have no business holding them.

By all means keep the 2nd amendment and the generally pro gun culture if that's what most people support, but make it much harder for certain people to get hold of an easy mans to kill a bunch of people.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, I didn't introduce the term "assault rifle." I never said that banning assault rifles wouldn't reduce the murder rate at all.

A provable lie.

If the goal is reducing the death toll from mass shootings, not just school shootings, taking away assault rifles won't cut it. You'll need to take away handguns as well.

(a) You introduced the term "assault rifles" as one you presumably had a working definition for; you then went on to criticise me for using the term.
(b) You stated that if the goal was reducing the death toll, banning assault rifles "won't cut it."

I apologize for using the facts to counter your argument. That's not a bait and switch strawman.

I apologise for pointing out that you're misrepresenting your own arguments in order to make other people's appear invalid. Which, of course, is a bait-and-switch strawman argument.

Dave

 

[smartcooky]

A provable lie.

(a) You introduced the term "assault rifles" as one you presumably had a weorking definition for; you then went on to criticise me for using the term.
(b) You stated that if the goal was reducing the death toll, banning assault rifles "won't cut it."

I apologise for pointing out that you're misrepresenting your own arguments in order to make other people's appear invalid. Which, of course, is a bait-and-switch strawman argument.

Dave

 

[CaptainHowdy]

A provable lie.

Feel free to prove it.

(a) You introduced the term "assault rifles" as one you presumably had a working definition for; you then went on to criticise me for using the term.

The term was introduced in the post I was responding to. "Assault rifle" was probably used on the first page of this discussion.

(b) You stated that if the goal was reducing the death toll, banning assault rifles "won't cut it."

Because it won't. And this gets back to the original point of contention which you've been trying to avoid answering: How is it "obviously absurd" to think that trying to reduce or eliminate mass shootings by restricting or completely banning certain types of gun isn't going to work if all you're proposing is restricting a type of gun that is very popular with gun owners in general but rarely used in mass shootings without also restricting or banning the most popular type of gun among mass shooters?

I apologise for pointing out that you're misrepresenting your own arguments in order to make other people's appear invalid. Which, of course, is a bait-and-switch strawman argument.

If I misrepresent my argument, and by doing so, I am successful in making other people's arguments appear invalid, then I win. But the argument I win is not the argument I am making. So it would be "obviously absurd" for me to do that.

 

[Lambchops]

That hole you're digging for yourself is getting pretty damn deep.

 

[William Parcher]

Broward Sheriff Scott Israel faces 'no confidence' vote by his deputies

Upset with Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, members of a union of rank-and-file deputies will vote electronically over the next week on whether they have faith in his leadership. The so-called “no confidence” vote, slated to begin tonight, is a first for the office...

The catalyst for the public show of displeasure was the Parkland school shooting Feb. 14, where a former student opened fire with an assault-style rifle in the freshman building of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, killing 17.

It quickly came to light that the Broward deputy assigned to protect the school, Scot Peterson, did not storm the building to confront the killer, but remained outside and even gave incorrect information to other arriving deputies. The union does not represent Peterson, because he chose not to join. However, Bell said morale at the sheriff’s office “has been absolutely crushed.”

Bell said Israel has refused to take responsibility for the disastrous performance at the school, where several other arriving deputies also stayed outside or took cover behind cars, unsure of where the gunfire was coming from. “The sheriff still blames one person,” Bell said, referring to Peterson. “As an agency we’ve not taken any responsibility for this.” The sheriff, as well as a commander on the scene and street-level deputies have been pilloried nationally by the media and the public for their seeming cowardice or incompetence in responding to the assault by Nikolas Cruz, a scrawny 19-year-old former student...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...g-sheriff-confidence-vote-20180420-story.html

 

[Meadmaker]

Because it won't. (ed. Banning assault rifles won't reduce deaths in mass shootings) And this gets back to the original point of contention which you've been trying to avoid answering: How is it "obviously absurd" to think that trying to reduce or eliminate mass shootings by restricting or completely banning certain types of gun isn't going to work if all you're proposing is restricting a type of gun that is very popular with gun owners in general but rarely used in mass shootings without also restricting or banning the most popular type of gun among mass shooters?

Here's why it would work. First, some preliminaries. In the paragraph above, you say "reduce or eliminate". It's important to understand that very few people, and no one here at ISF, believes that banning or restricting assault rifles will eliminate mass shootings. It won't even eliminate mass shootings that use assault rifles. Therefore, you shouldn't say "reduce or eliminate" because the "eliminate" isn't even part of the discussion. (Introducing it is perilously close to a straw man.)

With that in mind, we now go on to the type of gun that is "rarely used in mass shootings". Now, if we follow typical ISF patterns, we could argue about what constitutes "rare", but I don't want to do that. We know that they are used in some mass shootings, and we know that if we reduce gun deaths in mass shootings by one, we have reduced gun deaths in mass shootings. The exact degree by which they will be reduced could be refined by analysis of the statistics, but a reduction of one is a reduction. That's what we're talking about, right? All agreed so far?

So, now we move on to whether the banning of sales of assault rifles will reduce deaths from mass shootings. The NRA sometimes claims that even though those weapons are illegal, that will not prevent them from being used by criminals, specifically by mass shooters. We call B.S. Of course it will. Nick Cruz could not have obtained an illegal AR-15. Adam Lanza used his mother's perfectly legal gun. She, being a law abiding citizen, would not have had one had it been illegal. Of course it would reduce the number of assault rifles available to would-be mass shooters.

Your post focuses on the fact that a lot of mass shooters use other sorts of guns. It seems to suggest that a would-be mass shooter would just use a different sort of gun, the way his "peers" do, so the number of mass shootings would not be reduced by getting rid of the less popular form of gun. They would just turn to other guns that were still legal.

This is not so absurd that it deserves to be called B.S. but it's still wrong. For one thing, having such a powerful weapon makes these insecure, weak, people feel powerful. These people are compensating. You can see it all over Cruz' writings. The message is "I have a big gun! Fear me!" Some of them literally want to make sure that people remember them, and, let's be real, 2 dead and 2 wounded will make you a "mass shooter", but strictly from the bush leagues. Who wants to go out as a second rate mass shooter? When it comes to people that do use the AR-15 or other similar weapons, some of them wouldn't do it without the combination of confidence and lethality inspired by having a very powerful weapon. They would not turn to a simple pistol or shotgun. They might just stay home and grow out of it.

Second, among those who are determined to kill as many as they can on their way out, and would content themselves with low capacity magazines or slow fire weapons, the body count would be lowered. You say that assault rifles are not used by the majority of mass shooters, but when you get into the double digit killings, they become a lot more prominent. They exist for a reason. They are purchased because of their high rates of fire and fast reload capability. They work. If you want a high body count, an AR-15 is a better weapon than a revolver or a double barreled shotgun. If you lower the rate of fire, you lower the body count. The killer still achieves a mass shooting, but those 2 dead and 2 wounded are a lot less than 17 dead and 15 wounded.

So, if you outlaw or severely restrict assault rifles, some mass shootings would not happen at all, and other mass shootings would have a lower body count. Both mechanisms would result in a reduction in deaths from mass shootings.