CDZ The Dallas Shooter

[westwall]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

And, based on the evidence provided by Norway and France, would have likewise had zero effect on mass shootings. Face it, bad people can get whatever weapons they want to commit these horrible crimes. Your bans do NOTHING to prevent them.

 

[2aguy]

Bottom line is that more and more cities and states are going to ban the AR-15 and it's clones.

California just did.

Too bad the shooter in Dallas didn't use one then.......he used a weapon that wasn't an assault rifle..........10 round fixed magazine........what are you morons going to say now?

 

[2aguy]

so...is it that he killed 5 people in one go that is more important than 1,567 people over a whole year....and 1,500 every year...vs. about 248 a year with rifles...is that the important thing for you....you just don't care if the murders are spread out over a year....

AR-15s are used in fewer crimes than knives or hands and feet....far fewer..


Here you go...the updated table....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8



For 2014 included......


All rifles: 248 ------------(2013....285 (that means AR-15s kill even fewer than that))

Knives: 1,567-------------( 2013....1,490)

Hands and feet: 660----( 2013 .......687 )

Blunt objects: 435------ ( 2013....428)

And gun murders by rifle...been going down....

2009...351

2010...367

2011...332

2012...298

2013...285

2014...248

This is called a red herring fallacy.

You are trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide the killing power (force multiplication factor) of the AR's and AK's and their clones.

No actual facts.....

As the numbers from the CDC show, knives murder more people every year than all rifles.....and from the Mother Jones list of mass shootings going back to 1982 to 2016...so called assault rifles only mirdered 154 people in 34 years....

You don't care about actual deaths...you only care if it was a rifle that did the killing........

 

[2aguy]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

He would have had a weapon simillar just without the legally restricted features that the law would hqve banned.

lol

The gun he used?.......was not cover erred by the assault weapon ban..........the anti-gun nuts lose again.............

 

[2aguy]

‘"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.’

There will be no ‘new’ AWB, anyone who makes such a claim is a liar.

Even if Clinton is elected president and the Senate is controlled by democrats next year, there will be no ‘new’ AWB; anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.

Moreover, the AWB was not ‘un-Constitutional,’ the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether such bans violate the Second Amendment or not – anyone who makes the claim that advocating for the reinstatement of the AWB is to be ‘against’ the Second Amendment is a liar.

That most on the right attempt to contrive and propagate such lies comes as no surprise, of course.

The rifle he used was not covered by the ban....

 

[2aguy]

‘"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.’

There will be no ‘new’ AWB, anyone who makes such a claim is a liar.

Even if Clinton is elected president and the Senate is controlled by democrats next year, there will be no ‘new’ AWB; anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.

Moreover, the AWB was not ‘un-Constitutional,’ the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether such bans violate the Second Amendment or not – anyone who makes the claim that advocating for the reinstatement of the AWB is to be ‘against’ the Second Amendment is a liar.

That most on the right attempt to contrive and propagate such lies comes as no surprise, of course.

It doesn't matter what 5, politically appointed lawyers say...it is unConstitutional........

 

[320 Years of History]

The matter of gun-related deaths is one whereof the ~33K of them each year, ~20K of those are suicides. Now I don't really give a tinker's damn about "suicide by gun" because I find it hard to believe that a person intent on killing themselves would not do so if they didn't have (access to) a gun, but having a gun, will do so. Also, I am not among the folks who would attempt to dissuade a person from killing themselves. I'm in the "get the help you need to stop being suicidal, or go on and get it over with so those whom you leave behind can move on with their lives" camp.

That leaves the ~13K remaining involuntary deaths, along with however many involuntary civilian-caused gunshot injuries, to consider and the question I ask myself is whether as a nation we should do something or several things to reduce the number of those types of deaths/injuries. I think the answer to that question is "yes." What comes next is how to do that, and if all means of doing so cannot be simultaneously implemented, we must then choose sequence for pursuing the various modalities that offer some prospect of reducing the deaths/injuries.

I am unlikely to expressly oppose any of the approaches suggested for curbing gun-related deaths and injuries. I don't especially care whether folks do or can own guns, and I don't think the Framers were infallible in their decision to pen the Constitution as they did. Accordingly, if there're proposals that offer some hope of curtailing gun deaths/injuries, I say, "Hell, let's try it and see if it works in the U.S." I think the value of human life is worth that much.

 

[2aguy]

Less than two percent of gun crimes are committed with long guns, an even smaller percentage by AR platform rifles.

To ‘ban’ such firearms will have little effect on overall gun crime deaths, if any effect at all.

Consequently, advocating for a ‘new’ AWB is unwarranted.

Straw man AND red herring.

The issue with the assault style guns is force multiplication not number of deaths per year.

Except......actual killing shows that knives kill 1,500 people every single year (one year it was 1,499) and rifles on kill about 248 each year.........including mass public shootings....and rifles with detachable magazines only kill 154 people in mass shootings in 34 years....not even close to knives......

 

[320 Years of History]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

And, based on the evidence provided by Norway and France, would have likewise had zero effect on mass shootings. Face it, bad people can get whatever weapons they want to commit these horrible crimes. Your bans do NOTHING to prevent them.

Red:
That was not the question asked, nor is that pertinent to my answer to the question that was asked.

 

[2aguy]

The matter of gun-related deaths is one whereof the ~33K of them each year, ~20K of those are suicides. Now I don't really give a tinker's damn about "suicide by gun" because I find it hard to believe that a person intent on killing themselves would not do so if they didn't have (access to) a gun, but having a gun, will do so. Also, I am not among the folks who would attempt to dissuade a person from killing themselves. I'm in the "get the help you need to stop being suicidal, or go on and get it over with so those whom you leave behind can move on with their lives" camp.

That leaves the ~13K remaining involuntary deaths, along with however many involuntary civilian-caused gunshot injuries, to consider and the question I ask myself is whether as a nation we should do something or several things to reduce the number of those types of deaths/injuries. I think the answer to that question is "yes." What comes next is how to do that, and if all means of doing so cannot be simultaneously implemented, we must then choose sequence for pursuing the various modalities that offer some prospect of reducing the deaths/injuries.

I am unlikely to expressly oppose any of the approaches suggested for curbing gun-related deaths and injuries. I don't especially care whether folks do or can own guns, and I don't think the Framers were infallible in their decision to pen the Constitution as they did. Accordingly, if there're proposals that offer some hope of curtailing gun deaths/injuries, I say, "Hell, let's try it and see if it works in the U.S." I think the value of human life is worth that much.

There is one way to stop the majority of gun murder.....the FBI table 8 puts gun mirder at 8,124 for 2014 by the way.........long prison sentences for gun crime, including felons caught with guns...Japan put a 30 year sentence on gun crimes...and dried up yakuza shootings pretty well....

Anything else is pointless...and only targets people who do not commit crimes with guns......

 

[2aguy]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

Criminals in Europe..get them easily.

 

[320 Years of History]

The matter of gun-related deaths is one whereof the ~33K of them each year, ~20K of those are suicides. Now I don't really give a tinker's damn about "suicide by gun" because I find it hard to believe that a person intent on killing themselves would not do so if they didn't have (access to) a gun, but having a gun, will do so. Also, I am not among the folks who would attempt to dissuade a person from killing themselves. I'm in the "get the help you need to stop being suicidal, or go on and get it over with so those whom you leave behind can move on with their lives" camp.

That leaves the ~13K remaining involuntary deaths, along with however many involuntary civilian-caused gunshot injuries, to consider and the question I ask myself is whether as a nation we should do something or several things to reduce the number of those types of deaths/injuries. I think the answer to that question is "yes." What comes next is how to do that, and if all means of doing so cannot be simultaneously implemented, we must then choose sequence for pursuing the various modalities that offer some prospect of reducing the deaths/injuries.

I am unlikely to expressly oppose any of the approaches suggested for curbing gun-related deaths and injuries. I don't especially care whether folks do or can own guns, and I don't think the Framers were infallible in their decision to pen the Constitution as they did. Accordingly, if there're proposals that offer some hope of curtailing gun deaths/injuries, I say, "Hell, let's try it and see if it works in the U.S." I think the value of human life is worth that much.

There is one way to stop the majority of gun murder.....the FBI table 8 puts gun mirder at 8,124 for 2014 by the way.........long prison sentences for gun crime, including felons caught with guns...Japan put a 30 year sentence on gun crimes...and dried up yakuza shootings pretty well....

Anything else is pointless...and only targets people who do not commit crimes with guns......

IMO, the intransigence and implied infallibility that manifests itself though absolutist remarks such as that are among the reasons we have yet to effect solution approaches that actually do something to curtail the deaths and injuries.

 

[320 Years of History]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

Criminals in Europe..get them easily.

I'm not aiming to resolve Europe's problems. I am interested in trying solution options in the U.S. to reduce gun-related deaths and injuries in the U.S.

Perhaps you think that Europe and the U.S. are essentially the same in the ways that affect gun-related deaths and injuries? I don't think they are. There is certainly commonality ethos of Americans and Europeans that applies to how national societies are managed, but that commonality does IMO not exist in sufficient enough ways, as goes gun use/abuse, that we can use European policy models as indicators of what types of behavior Americans may exhibit were the same policies implemented in the U.S.

 

[2aguy]

The matter of gun-related deaths is one whereof the ~33K of them each year, ~20K of those are suicides. Now I don't really give a tinker's damn about "suicide by gun" because I find it hard to believe that a person intent on killing themselves would not do so if they didn't have (access to) a gun, but having a gun, will do so. Also, I am not among the folks who would attempt to dissuade a person from killing themselves. I'm in the "get the help you need to stop being suicidal, or go on and get it over with so those whom you leave behind can move on with their lives" camp.

That leaves the ~13K remaining involuntary deaths, along with however many involuntary civilian-caused gunshot injuries, to consider and the question I ask myself is whether as a nation we should do something or several things to reduce the number of those types of deaths/injuries. I think the answer to that question is "yes." What comes next is how to do that, and if all means of doing so cannot be simultaneously implemented, we must then choose sequence for pursuing the various modalities that offer some prospect of reducing the deaths/injuries.

I am unlikely to expressly oppose any of the approaches suggested for curbing gun-related deaths and injuries. I don't especially care whether folks do or can own guns, and I don't think the Framers were infallible in their decision to pen the Constitution as they did. Accordingly, if there're proposals that offer some hope of curtailing gun deaths/injuries, I say, "Hell, let's try it and see if it works in the U.S." I think the value of human life is worth that much.

There is one way to stop the majority of gun murder.....the FBI table 8 puts gun mirder at 8,124 for 2014 by the way.........long prison sentences for gun crime, including felons caught with guns...Japan put a 30 year sentence on gun crimes...and dried up yakuza shootings pretty well....

Anything else is pointless...and only targets people who do not commit crimes with guns......

IMO, the intransigence and implied infallibility that manifests itself though absolutist remarks such as that are among the reasons we have yet to effect solution approaches that actually do something to curtail the deaths and injuries.

No....you haven't been reading the posts where we have discussed the issues then. We have discussed each proposed new gun law....and simply shown why it will not stop criminals and mass shooters......we have discussed these things.....and when we point out that they will not achieve anything the anti gunners say they want achieved...they fall back to saying what you just said.....that we are absolutists.......that is not the case...their ideas just do not work....

Ours actually work...and will achieve an actual reduction in criminal gun violence.....but it does not require targeting law abiding gun owners.

If someone commits a crime with a gun...you put them in jail for a long time. I have posted time and again how prosecutors and judges allow felons, caught in possession of illegal guns...release them either before their trial, or give them short sentences...then they come out of jail and murder people with guns. I have posted those links in threads over and over.

They are convicted felons with illegal guns...as our former police Superintendant in Chicago says...felony weapons possession is the gate way crime to gun murder...and I have posted those stories......

And I have also posted the article about Japan...where they have kept the next Yakuza gang war from breaking out into gun and grenades......by imposing a 30 year sentence for illegal gun possession...now even the Yakuza don't want to touch guns....that is how you stop gun violence....you target actual criminals....and leave normal gun owners alone.

So putting people who commit crimes with gun in jail....for a long time would actually work, it wouldn't target any normal, law abiding gun owner, and it wouldn't require any new gun laws......or man power.....

But....it doesn't put any new restrictions, fees or taxes on normal gun owners.....which is the main goal of anti gun activists...


So please.....peddle your " you guys are absolutist" opinion somewhere else......or name a gun law you think would lower the gun crime rate in reality, not "if we stopped one criminal" theory........

 

[boedicca]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

There are 8 million of these rifles in private hands right now.....do you know how many people have been killed by these rifles.....wanna guess?

in 34 years 154 people have been murdered with these rifles....that's right....34 years....

Care to guess how many people have been killed by knives.....

in 2014 1,567 people were murdered by knives...and every year over 1,500 people are killed by knives over 6 times more people than are killed by all types of rifle.......

So......tell me again how bad these rifles are.....

The shooter also had military training, so next up the Loons will start labeling all veterans as a terror threat....oops, they already did.

Homeland Security on guard for ‘right-wing extremists’

 

[2aguy]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

Criminals in Europe..get them easily.

I'm not aiming to resolve Europe's problems. I am interested in trying solution options in the U.S. to reduce gun-related deaths and injuries in the U.S.

Perhaps you think that Europe and the U.S. are essentially the same in the ways that affect gun-related deaths and injuries? I don't think they are. There is certainly commonality ethos of Americans and Europeans that applies to how national societies are managed, but that commonality does IMO not exist in sufficient enough ways, as goes gun use/abuse, that we can use European policy models as indicators of what types of behavior Americans may exhibit were the same policies implemented in the U.S.

We aren't either....but they already have all the gun laws the anti gun activists in the U.S. say they want........it shows that extreme gun control laws do not effect a criminals ability to get a gun...even fully automatic weapons which they seem to prefer in Europe......

Britain did everything the anti gunners want...up to and including confiscating guns.....and what happened, on this island nation, to their gun crime rate.....it stayed the same. In fact, last year, their gun crime rate went up 4%. So if you are looking at how gun control laws actually work in practice, then Europe shows they don't work...other than for law abiding citizens who do not use guns for crime anyway......

 

[westwall]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

And, based on the evidence provided by Norway and France, would have likewise had zero effect on mass shootings. Face it, bad people can get whatever weapons they want to commit these horrible crimes. Your bans do NOTHING to prevent them.

Red:
That was not the question asked, nor is that pertinent to my answer to the question that was asked.

You claim that an outright gun ban will prevent those nasty guns from getting into the hands of bad people. My factual data refutes your assertion, totally, completely, and utterly. In other words, your assertion is not just false. But catastrophically so.

 

[320 Years of History]

you haven't been reading the posts where we have discussed the issues

If they are in this thread, no, I have not. I answered the OP question and responded to people who commented on my answer to the OP's question.

 

[320 Years of History]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

And, based on the evidence provided by Norway and France, would have likewise had zero effect on mass shootings. Face it, bad people can get whatever weapons they want to commit these horrible crimes. Your bans do NOTHING to prevent them.

Red:
That was not the question asked, nor is that pertinent to my answer to the question that was asked.

You claim that an outright gun ban will prevent those nasty guns from getting into the hands of bad people. My factual data refutes your assertion, totally, completely, and utterly. In other words, your assertion is not just false. But catastrophically so.

Look at what what asked and what I wrote in reply to it. I did not say anything about "bad people" or what guns they may get hold of. I'll repeat what question I answered and my answer to it:

Question: How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Answer: I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.
​

I directly answered the question that was asked. I didn't go off on some tangent about "bad people" or how many guns "bad people" may obtain, how they may obtain them, or why.

 

[Howey]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

There are 8 million of these rifles in private hands right now.....do you know how many people have been killed by these rifles.....wanna guess?

in 34 years 154 people have been murdered with these rifles....that's right....34 years....

Care to guess how many people have been killed by knives.....

in 2014 1,567 people were murdered by knives...and every year over 1,500 people are killed by knives over 6 times more people than are killed by all types of rifle.......

So......tell me again how bad these rifles are.....

The shooter also had military training, so next up the Loons will start labeling all veterans as a terror threat....oops, they already did.

Homeland Security on guard for ‘right-wing extremists’

WND? lol...what happened to you Bodie?

However, good. Right wing extremists are in this country in greater numbers than ISIS and are a far greater threat.