Reply With Quote
what is JAMA, chris?
lol JAMA graphsoh wow. bearingarms.com says AR-15's are good. NO WAY
whats next, chris, a link to peta about how eating beef is bad?
what is JAMA, chris?
You posted it.
Ignorant of your own sources. What a surprise.
i know what it is.
do you? is it comparable to bearingarms.com or peta in that its an advocacy group for policies on that specific issue?
open mouth, insert foot?You just presented a chart and study saying semi auto rifles were more lethal
Are you moving the goalpost now to most non-lethal damage?
Doing the Pavlov routine I see. I'm guessing this is just another disconnect.
The ones more likely to cause more damage aren’t even used in mass shootings, those same ones aren’t practical for self defense.completely agree
im fine with banning the ones that are more likely to cause more damage in a mass shooting and aren't particular practical for self defense purposes either
studies have shown that people with rifles tend to shoot more people and kill more people per incident (even if the ratio of people killed/shot is lower)
In your opinion what makes an AR-15 not practical for self defense?
Unless it's an article from MSNBC or a JAMA graph prepare to be laughed at.
Actually, the graph you posted had a header that didn’t even properly name the study it was depicting.
So it's ok if they kill each other because obviously black lives matter.I'd like to ask why conservatives default to this deflection every time a mass shooting occurs (Hannity is doing it now. Yes, I was morbidly curious enough to see how this asshole would spin it)? Cub probably answered the question that it just muddies the waters and confuses debate, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. Anyhow, I'll guess what I think conservatives are hoping to achieve.
- They believe focusing on mass shootings is selective outrage and that if Liberals "really cared" about gun violence, they would be incensed 24/7 about inner city gang violence.
False analogy. It's basic human psychology to be more outraged and fearful at events where innocent people are targeted in such places as schools, churches, movie theaters, and Walmarts than it is when you read/hear about gang members killing each other. Yes, unfortunately innocents get caught in drive by crossfire and the like, but there is something just more viscerally horrifying about a guy walking into a Walmart and indiscriminately shooting innocents than a gang shootout. The Christchurch shooting was on a whole 'nother level of deranged.
- They think Liberals avoid talking about inner city gang violence because they happen in "Liberal cities and gun free zones."
Just
And why would conservatives want liberals talking about inner city gun violence? It'll just give libs MORE ammunition (no pun) in the gun control debate. Many of those black market weapons were once "legal weapons." Is this fact lost of them?
I simply don't get the purpose of the "But Chicago" deflection. Help me out.
You differentiating "inner city gang violence" from "walking into Walmart and shooting everyone" is interesting. What is it about the lives of inner city kids that makes them any less important than people at a Walmart? What if the Walmart was in the inner city? Would it be ok then to shoot it up? Would that be dismissed with the wave of a smug, virtual hand as "those people"?
Some here, you included in this post, seem to imply that "inner city" and "gang" means the same thing, that the deaths are part of an ongoing war of attrition between rival factions. But somehow I'm supposed to go ape because someone from the suburbs did it.
agree that the header was inaccurate
the data still contradicted the claim that people with handguns will be able to shoot the same amount of people as people with semi auto rifles. the reason i posted it was for the data, not the header.
do you still think i was moving goalposts and that i was refuting the study i posted?
He knows jack about guns.
You don't need to know about guns to debate gun control. You need to know about guns to debate gun laws though.
Wow huge if true, wait till the military finds out they don't need rifles.agree that the header was inaccurate
the data still contradicted the claim that people with handguns will be able to shoot the same amount of people as people with semi auto rifles. the reason i posted it was for the data, not the header.
do you still think i was moving goalposts and that i was refuting the study i posted?
The data was inadequate and they admit it. They didn’t have enough mass shootings (type we are discussing) with handguns to even attempt a decent comparison.agree that the header was inaccurate
the data still contradicted the claim that people with handguns will be able to shoot the same amount of people as people with semi auto rifles. the reason i posted it was for the data, not the header.
do you still think i was moving goalposts and that i was refuting the study i posted?
seriously. all they need are handguns because they're more lethal.
screw that. take away their weapons and just give them cars and alcohol, since more people die from drunk driving than gunshots!
challenging their results for having insufficient underlying data is one thing.
trying to assert that the i was suddenly claiming the opposite of the study i linked is entirely different. do you acknowledge that the latter never occurred?
Rifles have longer lethal range due to accuracy. A handgun might kill you from 100 yards but you'd be lucky to hit a 10'x10' wall at that distance with it. Take a simple .223 iron sights and you could put rounds through a 1'x1' window at 100 yards all day long. That along with rapid target acquisition make the semi-auto rifle more effective in urban combat situations than the handgun. The handgun is only used as backup or right up close and personal like cops usually get.
You're also comparing apples to oranges. The odds of being killed by a drunk driver are far greater than the odds of being killed in a mass shooting in the US. If you were in the military in a war zone, engaged in conflict... your odds of being killed by gunfire increase.
There's no reason to be re ed about it.
i think we're on the same page. people trying to claim that assault rifles are no more effective in these mass shootings than a 9mm would be are disingenuous, and that's my point.
we're not even at what the appropriate solution would be, or if there is even a need to make changes (i doubt TSA and I would be on the same page there), but even getting him to acknowledge that these rifles are probably more effective in the mass shooting scenario is like pulling teeth
Why now Pop and Kerr? Clinton? Nope. Bush. Nope. Obama? Nope. Why now and what do you want them to do? How about start by gathering up all the illegal and stolen guns from drug dealers and the gangs? How about going to Chicago and seeing the results of 40 shootings over the weekend.
That's TSA's argument tbh.
The data set from that study seems inadequate and heavily skewed by including Vegas where the shooter was hundreds of yards away:
Table 1
Case Fatality Rate by Incident and Firearm Type
Case fatality rate = number of persons killed/(number of persons killed + injured).
Event location Year Case fatality rate, % People shot by firearm, n Handgun Shotgun Rifle Multiple San Diego, CA 1984 53.7 8 6 0 8 Edmond, OK 1986 71.4 15 0 0 0 Jonesboro, AR 1998 33.3 1 0 1 3 Jefferson County, CO 1999 35.1 3 5 0 6 Melrose Park, IL 2001 50.0 3 0 0 1 South Bend, IN 2002 66.6 0 0 0 4 Chicago, IL 2003 100.0 7 0 0 0 Sawyer County, WI 2004 66.0 0 0 6 0 Lancaster, PA 2006 44.4 0 5 0 0 Crandon, WI 2007 85.7 7 0 0 0 Colorado Springs, CO 2007 50 0 0 5 0 Dekalb, IL 2008 19.2 3 0 0 1 Carthage, NC 2009 72.7 0 8 0 0 Hialeah, FL 2010 57.1 4 0 0 0 Tucson, AZ 2011 31.6 6 0 0 0 Seal Beach, CA 2011 88.9 7 0 0 1 Copley Township, OH 2011 87.5 8 0 0 0 Oakland, CA 2012 70.0 7 0 0 0 Seattle, WA 2012 83.3 3 1 0 1 Oak Creek, WI 2012 60 0 0 0 7 Santa Monica, CA 2013 55.6 5 0 1 0 Orlando, FL 2016 48.0 0 0 49 0 Las Vegas, NV 2017 10.6 0 0 58 0
https://www.journalacs.org/action/sh...72751518321926
Because it's politically expedient. It hits a lot of talking points: lenient policing, darkies, extreme poverty, Dem territory, high drug abuse. It's the prototypical whataboutism.
Perhaps the biggest difference with mass shootings is that the rampant-crime-in-big-city problematic has been solved a number of times before (without the need of conservative leadership/policies either). New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, too many to list.
As it's typical with these deflections, it does nothing to debate or advance solutions for Chicago or Mass shootings. Basically a waste of time.
Well its pretty simple as explained by this chart and this meme i made a while back:
Better question based on the above chart is why crime is plummeting so much in liberal run cities overall but Rs are not interested in that question God knows why
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
