CDZ The Dallas Shooter

[2aguy]

There is no need to ban 8,000,000 when they have only been used in mass shootings to kill 154 people in 34 years.

knives murdered 1,567 people in 2014, and over 1,500 people every year....that is over 6 times the rate of all rifle types.....

Rifles are not a problem.........you guys are just fixated on them........

Where did you get that number? I can't find long term statistics but the following article lists the deaths using just an AR-15 in 2015. There are 55 of them. This year, there were 49 killed in Orlando in addition to the 5 policemen killed in Dallas. The total for the last 2 years then was 109. Are you telling me that there were only 45 killed with these weapons in the 32 years preceding 2015. If so, what is the cause of the enormous increase in the last 2 years?

Gun Used in the San Bernardino Massacre Is a Mass Shooting Mainstay

I have posted in other threads the list of mass public shootings from Mother Jones....it goes back to 1982 all the way up to 2016...I read the details of the mass shootings, looking for the weapon used....I used any rifle with a detachable magazine....I will link to that....AR-15s and other rifles only really became popular recently for mass shooters......

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

the increase......the attempt to ban AR-15s made them look deadly and attractive to mass shooters.......the attempt to ban them gave them street cred with mass shooters........

And you don't think that the fact that these weapons are more readily available now than they were 20 years ago has had any influence on the fact that almost 80% of these deaths have occurred in the last 4 years?[/QUOTE]


No.....there are 8,000,000 in private hands.......tell me we have 10,000 people doing mass shootings with them and then we can talk.......

knives kill over 6 times as many people as all rifles combined...each and every single year as these rifles do........and there are 8 million of these rifles with detachable magazines in private hands............

Why are they using the AR-15....because the media has given it a street reputation...if they gave media coverage on the guys using shotguns....and played up the shotgun in story after story.....then they would use shotguns...

Do you realize that these mass shooters study other mass shootings...? That they plan 6 months to 2 years in advance?

The media has to stop glamorizing these guys........

 

[2aguy]

There is no need to ban 8,000,000 when they have only been used in mass shootings to kill 154 people in 34 years.

knives murdered 1,567 people in 2014, and over 1,500 people every year....that is over 6 times the rate of all rifle types.....

Rifles are not a problem.........you guys are just fixated on them........

Where did you get that number? I can't find long term statistics but the following article lists the deaths using just an AR-15 in 2015. There are 55 of them. This year, there were 49 killed in Orlando in addition to the 5 policemen killed in Dallas. The total for the last 2 years then was 109. Are you telling me that there were only 45 killed with these weapons in the 32 years preceding 2015. If so, what is the cause of the enormous increase in the last 2 years?

Gun Used in the San Bernardino Massacre Is a Mass Shooting Mainstay

I have posted in other threads the list of mass public shootings from Mother Jones....it goes back to 1982 all the way up to 2016...I read the details of the mass shootings, looking for the weapon used....I used any rifle with a detachable magazine....I will link to that....AR-15s and other rifles only really became popular recently for mass shooters......

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

the increase......the attempt to ban AR-15s made them look deadly and attractive to mass shooters.......the attempt to ban them gave them street cred with mass shooters........

And you don't think that the fact that these weapons are more readily available now than they were 20 years ago has had any influence on the fact that almost 80% of these deaths have occurred in the last 4 years?[/QUOTE]


You do realize that we had these rifles and rifles like it in 1982....right.....? Why weren't they used back then, into the 90s when the Florida drug gangs were using fully automatic weapons.....remember Miami Vice? The thing that changed...the anti gun politicians want to ban AR-15s and other rifles...so their buddies in the media have been playing up those rifles as being exceptionally deadly.....and they aren't......but the media making them seem more deadly than a pistol has reached the brains of mass shooters......and they have chosen the new, media sensation rifle........

These rifles are not more deadlly than other firearms...target location makes the weapon deadly...the Sandy Hook shooter murdered children to increase his body count...the Orlando muslim shooter shot up a tightly packed night club.....the San Bernadino muslim terrorists.....shot up a conference room....standing in the exit....

this guy...tried to shoot in an open space and hit 12......and then his victims..the cops..were rushing toward him....making it easier to shoot them since the majority of the cops only had pistols....he had a rifle from a distant, covered position.....

You need to think more about this than just buying the anti gunner propaganda....

 

[2aguy]

You want to stop the AR-15 from being used in mass shootings....stop listing the type of weapon in the news stories....and stop calling it an exceptionally deadly weapon.......that is what is driving this choice of weapon...notice they have any number of other rifles, which are far more powerful than the AR-15.........but they are choosing the AR-15 because the media is marketing it as the go to weapon for mass shooters.........

 

[SingleVoyce]

There is no need to ban 8,000,000 when they have only been used in mass shootings to kill 154 people in 34 years.

knives murdered 1,567 people in 2014, and over 1,500 people every year....that is over 6 times the rate of all rifle types.....

Rifles are not a problem.........you guys are just fixated on them........

Where did you get that number? I can't find long term statistics but the following article lists the deaths using just an AR-15 in 2015. There are 55 of them. This year, there were 49 killed in Orlando in addition to the 5 policemen killed in Dallas. The total for the last 2 years then was 109. Are you telling me that there were only 45 killed with these weapons in the 32 years preceding 2015. If so, what is the cause of the enormous increase in the last 2 years?

Gun Used in the San Bernardino Massacre Is a Mass Shooting Mainstay

I have looked through your link.......I couldn't find their 55 number anywhere in the link? Can you point it out....?[/QUOTE]

The 55 was the total of the deaths listed in the article. Thirty-two of them were actually in 2012, however, so my statement was incorrect. However, they also failed to list two other 2015 shootings that were listed in the Mother Jones article that accounted for another 8 deaths. The actual tally for the AR-15 in 2015 seems to be 31 and 32 for 2012.

 

[2aguy]

There is no need to ban 8,000,000 when they have only been used in mass shootings to kill 154 people in 34 years.

knives murdered 1,567 people in 2014, and over 1,500 people every year....that is over 6 times the rate of all rifle types.....

Rifles are not a problem.........you guys are just fixated on them........

Where did you get that number? I can't find long term statistics but the following article lists the deaths using just an AR-15 in 2015. There are 55 of them. This year, there were 49 killed in Orlando in addition to the 5 policemen killed in Dallas. The total for the last 2 years then was 109. Are you telling me that there were only 45 killed with these weapons in the 32 years preceding 2015. If so, what is the cause of the enormous increase in the last 2 years?

Gun Used in the San Bernardino Massacre Is a Mass Shooting Mainstay

I have looked through your link.......I couldn't find their 55 number anywhere in the link? Can you point it out....?

The 55 was the total of the deaths listed in the article. Thirty-two of them were actually in 2012, however, so my statement was incorrect. However, they also failed to list two other 2015 shootings that were listed in the Mother Jones article that accounted for another 8 deaths. The actual tally for the AR-15 in 2015 seems to be 31 and 32 for 2012.[/QUOTE]


So you can see.....rifles are not the problem. 8,000,000 in this country...right now...and they account for 31 deaths.......

Knives in 2014.... 1,567 deaths.

And that tally is not just AR-15 deaths........you have to check the stories....the other rifle was a different model in 2015....you would have to check the list from Mother Jones again....

 

[SingleVoyce]

You do realize that we had these rifles and rifles like it in 1982....right.....?[/COLOR] Why weren't they used back then, into the 90s when the Florida drug gangs were using fully automatic weapons.....remember Miami Vice? The thing that changed...the anti gun politicians want to ban AR-15s and other rifles...so their buddies in the media have been playing up those rifles as being exceptionally deadly.....and they aren't......but the media making them seem more deadly than a pistol has reached the brains of mass shooters......and they have chosen the new, media sensation rifle........

These rifles are not more deadlly than other firearms...target location makes the weapon deadly...the Sandy Hook shooter murdered children to increase his body count...the Orlando muslim shooter shot up a tightly packed night club.....the San Bernadino muslim terrorists.....shot up a conference room....standing in the exit....

this guy...tried to shoot in an open space and hit 12......and then his victims..the cops..were rushing toward him....making it easier to shoot them since the majority of the cops only had pistols....he had a rifle from a distant, covered position.....

You need to think more about this than just buying the anti gunner propaganda....

And you do realize that there are roughly 4 million more of them in the possession of private citizens today that there were in 1982 .. right..? If such weapons were not more deadly than a pistol, the security guard in Orlando who first confronted the shooter would not have been forced to retreat in the face of superior firepower and a lot of victims would probably have survived. Target location is, of course, a critical factor in the number of casualties but the large numbers we have seen in recent events would not be likely without the type of weapons that have been used.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You do realize that we had these rifles and rifles like it in 1982....right.....?[/COLOR] Why weren't they used back then, into the 90s when the Florida drug gangs were using fully automatic weapons.....remember Miami Vice? The thing that changed...the anti gun politicians want to ban AR-15s and other rifles...so their buddies in the media have been playing up those rifles as being exceptionally deadly.....and they aren't......but the media making them seem more deadly than a pistol has reached the brains of mass shooters......and they have chosen the new, media sensation rifle........

These rifles are not more deadlly than other firearms...target location makes the weapon deadly...the Sandy Hook shooter murdered children to increase his body count...the Orlando muslim shooter shot up a tightly packed night club.....the San Bernadino muslim terrorists.....shot up a conference room....standing in the exit....

this guy...tried to shoot in an open space and hit 12......and then his victims..the cops..were rushing toward him....making it easier to shoot them since the majority of the cops only had pistols....he had a rifle from a distant, covered position.....

You need to think more about this than just buying the anti gunner propaganda....

And you do realize that there are roughly 4 million more of them in the possession of private citizens today that there were in 1982 .. right..? If such weapons were not more deadly than a pistol, the security guard in Orlando who first confronted the shooter would not have been forced to retreat in the face of superior firepower and a lot of victims would probably have survived. Target location is, of course, a critical factor in the number of casualties but the large numbers we have seen in recent events would not be likely without the type of weapons that have been used.

Rifles are more powerful than pistols. It's the engineering differences that make it so

The barrel length alone gives a rifle may advantages over a handgun. Higher muzzle velocities at lower pressure, less recoil and better accuracy for example

A hand gun for the most part isn't much good for most people beyond 20 yards or even less. In fact most handguns are used over distance of about 8 to 25 feet.

A handgun with a 6 in barrel will be more accurate than one with a 3 in barrel mostly because the recoil will be more manageable

Your assumption that these shootings had high casualties because of the rifle used is inaccurate. In a crowded space like that club or even a classroom handguns could have easily done just as much damage

 

[IsaacNewton]

The conservatives here are clueless about firearms. As with most subjects you cannot have a discussion WITH them as the fake narrative in their mind cannot be penetrated with fact. Some of them believe in a magic talking snake so what follows that should come as no surprise.

Is this what you run to when your remarks are exposed as BS?

Cant defend your position simply declare the other guys are 'clueless.'

I sometimes mirror this type of thing back to people so they see how it sounds. You do the thing you would castigate, you simply remark "your remarks are exposed as blah blah blah". Which they aren't but you have nothing else, just like xxxxxx I responded to.

Many cons on this board have this weird con-talk-radio view of the world that is absolutely false. Many cons believe 'liberals' don't own guns and don't know anything about them. Almost all the 'libeals' I know own gune and are far more educated on them than the conservatives I know simply because liberals are more prone to research things and learn something than are conservatives who rely on dogma and heresay.

Sorry but it's true.

 

[FA_Q2]

How is it stopped when studies like this have continued to be done...the only thing the CDC is prohibited from doing is biased research.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?_r=0

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

For whatever pages you read from that study, the first page must not have been among them:

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.​

You have repeated this statement a few times. Why?

The fact that the CDC does not take an 'official' position on the studies that they are undertaking concerning guns has absolutely nothing to do with your original assertion at all - the assertion that they are barred from performing studies on gun violence.

Pointing out the above is nothing more than deflecting from the fact that such studies are done.

Red:
If you study something, and then you write about what you found, do you agree with the conclusion of your study?

Or do you study something, write about what you found, and then say, "I studied XYZ to out 'such and such,' and what I found is ABC; therefore I conclude PQR, but my conclusion does not represent my point of view on the matter I studied."?

If you are a large organization then that depends on the subject matter studied and if the data is comprehensive enough for your organization to fully get behind. In this case, it is likely that the CDC does not take an official position because of the subject matter.

Once again, this has nothing to do with your original contention.

 

[FA_Q2]

The conservatives here are clueless about firearms. As with most subjects you cannot have a discussion WITH them as the fake narrative in their mind cannot be penetrated with fact. Some of them believe in a magic talking snake so what follows that should come as no surprise.

Is this what you run to when your remarks are exposed as BS?

Cant defend your position simply declare the other guys are 'clueless.'

I sometimes mirror this type of thing back to people so they see how it sounds. You do the thing you would castigate, you simply remark "your remarks are exposed as blah blah blah". Which they aren't but you have nothing else, just like the derp I responded to.

Many cons on this board have this weird con-talk-radio view of the world that is absolutely false. Many cons believe 'liberals' don't own guns and don't know anything about them. Almost all the 'libeals' I know own gune and are far more educated on them than the conservatives I know simply because liberals are more prone to research things and learn something than are conservatives who rely on dogma and heresay.

Sorry but it's true.

Apparently, in your case, it is not true. Your argument was revealed as BS by several here. You are trying to project your outright denial that there has been actual facts posted here onto others.

Sorry, but that does not fly. I don't care if you think that 'liberals' are more likely to do research when 'conservatives' are more likely to rely on dogma - that is irrelevant to what you and others are doing right here right now.

 

[2aguy]

You do realize that we had these rifles and rifles like it in 1982....right.....?[/COLOR] Why weren't they used back then, into the 90s when the Florida drug gangs were using fully automatic weapons.....remember Miami Vice? The thing that changed...the anti gun politicians want to ban AR-15s and other rifles...so their buddies in the media have been playing up those rifles as being exceptionally deadly.....and they aren't......but the media making them seem more deadly than a pistol has reached the brains of mass shooters......and they have chosen the new, media sensation rifle........

These rifles are not more deadlly than other firearms...target location makes the weapon deadly...the Sandy Hook shooter murdered children to increase his body count...the Orlando muslim shooter shot up a tightly packed night club.....the San Bernadino muslim terrorists.....shot up a conference room....standing in the exit....

this guy...tried to shoot in an open space and hit 12......and then his victims..the cops..were rushing toward him....making it easier to shoot them since the majority of the cops only had pistols....he had a rifle from a distant, covered position.....

You need to think more about this than just buying the anti gunner propaganda....

And you do realize that there are roughly 4 million more of them in the possession of private citizens today that there were in 1982 .. right..? If such weapons were not more deadly than a pistol, the security guard in Orlando who first confronted the shooter would not have been forced to retreat in the face of superior firepower and a lot of victims would probably have survived. Target location is, of course, a critical factor in the number of casualties but the large numbers we have seen in recent events would not be likely without the type of weapons that have been used.

If the attacker had used a pistol and started firing at him he still would have retreated...it was aggressive advancing on your opponent, not weapon type, dittos if he had had a shotgun.....

You need to study actual gun fighting.......

The guy at the door recieved incoming fire, he retreated to get the call out for backup.......had he stayed behind cover he could have saved lives.......the shooter would have had to deal with him and not leave him behind him.........

But...odds are...the good guy didn't have spare magazines on him......which is why we keep telling the anti gun nuts that magazine capacity is incredibly important for the defender........

 

[2aguy]

The conservatives here are clueless about firearms. As with most subjects you cannot have a discussion WITH them as the fake narrative in their mind cannot be penetrated with fact. Some of them believe in a magic talking snake so what follows that should come as no surprise.

Is this what you run to when your remarks are exposed as BS?

Cant defend your position simply declare the other guys are 'clueless.'

I sometimes mirror this type of thing back to people so they see how it sounds. You do the thing you would castigate, you simply remark "your remarks are exposed as blah blah blah". Which they aren't but you have nothing else, just like the derp I responded to.

Many cons on this board have this weird con-talk-radio view of the world that is absolutely false. Many cons believe 'liberals' don't own guns and don't know anything about them. Almost all the 'libeals' I know own gune and are far more educated on them than the conservatives I know simply because liberals are more prone to research things and learn something than are conservatives who rely on dogma and heresay.

Sorry but it's true.

We know some lefties do have guns.....and you simply preach gun control for everyone else..we get it.......all the democrats sitting on the house floor calling for an assault weapon ban and those other 4 useless laws......are protected by armed men...and if they request it they can get federal protection.....

lefties wouldn't know the facts about guns if their lives depended on it.....and they did in that Orlando club......

 

[320 Years of History]

There is no need to ban 8,000,000 when they have only been used in mass shootings to kill 154 people in 34 years.

knives murdered 1,567 people in 2014, and over 1,500 people every year....that is over 6 times the rate of all rifle types.....

Rifles are not a problem.........you guys are just fixated on them........

Where did you get that number? I can't find long term statistics but the following article lists the deaths using just an AR-15 in 2015. There are 55 of them. This year, there were 49 killed in Orlando in addition to the 5 policemen killed in Dallas. The total for the last 2 years then was 109. Are you telling me that there were only 45 killed with these weapons in the 32 years preceding 2015. If so, what is the cause of the enormous increase in the last 2 years?

Gun Used in the San Bernardino Massacre Is a Mass Shooting Mainstay[/QUOTE]

FWIW, you're attacking the wrong thing. The fact (assuming it's true) that mass shooters have caused the deaths of 154 people in the past 34 years can legitimately support a number of claims, but the claim it best supports is that "mass shootings are not a key indicator of the role guns play in the overall gun violence problem that exists in the U.S."

The reason is that for as shocking and sensational as mass shootings are, that they are goes a long way why they occupy so much news coverage; however, for all the news coverage they receive, they are very rare events in course of American life. So, if one is going to assert guns are the problem, one needs more shootings than 154 in 34 years to make that case.

This goes directly to the point of prioritization I made earlier. Yes, 154 people involuntarily killed is still 154 too many, but in the scheme of problems we need to address re: gun-related violence, mass shootings are but a "drop in the bucket." When the millions of gun-related violent events comes down to mere hundreds or thousands, then perhaps the handful of them that are mass shootings can become worth addressing. For now, however, if the only gun violence we had to deal with were mass shootings, I suspect most folks would do little but say, "Oh, what a shame." And really, what else is there to do but that when seemingly level headed folks "flip out" and become "lone wolf" mass killers?

 

[320 Years of History]

How is it stopped when studies like this have continued to be done...the only thing the CDC is prohibited from doing is biased research.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?_r=0

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

For whatever pages you read from that study, the first page must not have been among them:

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.​

You have repeated this statement a few times. Why?

The fact that the CDC does not take an 'official' position on the studies that they are undertaking concerning guns has absolutely nothing to do with your original assertion at all - the assertion that they are barred from performing studies on gun violence.

Pointing out the above is nothing more than deflecting from the fact that such studies are done.

Red:
If you study something, and then you write about what you found, do you agree with the conclusion of your study?

Or do you study something, write about what you found, and then say, "I studied XYZ to out 'such and such,' and what I found is ABC; therefore I conclude PQR, but my conclusion does not represent my point of view on the matter I studied."?

If you are a large organization then that depends on the subject matter studied and if the data is comprehensive enough for your organization to fully get behind. In this case, it is likely that the CDC does not take an official position because of the subject matter.

Once again, this has nothing to do with your original contention.

Okaaay....you just keep on thinking that....

 

[FA_Q2]

How is it stopped when studies like this have continued to be done...the only thing the CDC is prohibited from doing is biased research.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?_r=0

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

For whatever pages you read from that study, the first page must not have been among them:

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.​

You have repeated this statement a few times. Why?

The fact that the CDC does not take an 'official' position on the studies that they are undertaking concerning guns has absolutely nothing to do with your original assertion at all - the assertion that they are barred from performing studies on gun violence.

Pointing out the above is nothing more than deflecting from the fact that such studies are done.

Red:
If you study something, and then you write about what you found, do you agree with the conclusion of your study?

Or do you study something, write about what you found, and then say, "I studied XYZ to out 'such and such,' and what I found is ABC; therefore I conclude PQR, but my conclusion does not represent my point of view on the matter I studied."?

If you are a large organization then that depends on the subject matter studied and if the data is comprehensive enough for your organization to fully get behind. In this case, it is likely that the CDC does not take an official position because of the subject matter.

Once again, this has nothing to do with your original contention.

Okaaay....you just keep on thinking that....

So you are going to ignore the fact that the CDC researches gun violence?