Banning assault weapons: Just to set the record straight. According to FBI stats about 375 people a year die in mass shootings. Virtually all by AR 15 type guns. While that number is...

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Just to set the record straight. According to FBI stats about 375 people a year die in mass shootings. Virtually all by AR 15 type guns. While that number is terrible, a person is more likely to die driving to the gun store, as cars k**l more people than murder by all guns. I wonder if congress would consider a law which would involve such a small number of it's citizens.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

The assertion is wrong: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

IDguy Loc: Idaho

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Pistols used most but Knives, blunt objects, and personal weapons ( hands and feet) exceed all rifles. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

PS: I agree with the OP’s premise but prefer to keep facts straight.

APB Loc: UK

Why on earth does anyone feel the need for an assault rifle!

I can, just, accept that in some areas of the US hunting etc. may be a way of life or an activity but a weapon of that type in towns and cities just makes no sense.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

APB wrote:

Why on earth does anyone feel the need for an assault rifle!

I can, just, accept that in some areas of the US hunting etc. may be a way of life or an activity but a weapon of that type in towns and cities just makes no sense.

It's a pathetic weak man thing.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

boberic wrote:

Just to set the record straight. According to FBI stats about 375 people a year die in mass shootings. Virtually all by AR 15 type guns. While that number is terrible, a person is more likely to die driving to the gun store, as cars k**l more people than murder by all guns. I wonder if congress would consider a law which would involve such a small number of it's citizens.

Hard to say. They freaked out over 3,000 people on 911, though I've always believed that was in response to the monetary cost. Without destruction of the buildings, I wonder how much we would care.

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

APB wrote:

Why on earth does anyone feel the need for an assault rifle!

I can, just, accept that in some areas of the US hunting etc. may be a way of life or an activity but a weapon of that type in towns and cities just makes no sense.

can you define assault weapon. UK dweller????

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

wilpharm wrote:

can you define assault weapon. UK dweller????

I can. ANY weapon

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

boberic wrote:

I can. ANY weapon

well, thats the liberal def all right, pencils maybe??

pendennis

boberic wrote:

I can. ANY weapon

Not even remotely correct. The term "assault weapon" is a canard used to try and identify weapons which have a
military appearance". In fact, assault weapons are not in the nomenclature of military small arms. The M-16 is not defined as an assault weapon, and neither are any of the automatic weapons used by the military. Fully automatic weapons of rifle caliber are machine guns; fully automatic weapons of pistol caliber are sub-machine guns.

btbg

IDguy wrote:

The assertion is wrong: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

You are not looking at the same set of statistics as boberic. He is talking about all gun deaths and you are talking about mass shootings. Mass shootings are a very small percent of the total deaths. The information you provided says mass shooting right at the top.

If you stopped all mass shootings it would still only stop between 1 and 2 percent of all gun deaths, probably less, since most of the stats tend to leave suicides out of the equation.

So, the question is why all the moral outrage about mass shootings by the left, but no concern at all for all of the gang related shootings in our major cities? The mass shooting is tragic, but relatively rare, while the gang shootings are a nightly occurrence. Why not address the biggest problem first?

The answer is simple. The left wants to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but have zero concern for what happens in gang violence.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

pendennis wrote:

Not even remotely correct. The term "assault weapon" is a canard used to try and identify weapons which have a
military appearance". In fact, assault weapons are not in the nomenclature of military small arms. The M-16 is not defined as an assault weapon, and neither are any of the automatic weapons used by the military. Fully automatic weapons of rifle caliber are machine guns; fully automatic weapons of pistol caliber are sub-machine guns.

I know that you are "technically" correct. But so am I, as any weapon can be used as an assualt weapon. Knives after all are military weapons

trainspotter Loc: Oregon

boberic wrote:

I can. ANY weapon

My semi automatic "Irish walking stick" can frap an attacker in the small parts and a whack their hands in TWO lightening fast swings....

trainspotter Loc: Oregon

APB wrote:

Why on earth does anyone feel the need for an assault rifle!

I can, just, accept that in some areas of the US hunting etc. may be a way of life or an activity but a weapon of that type in towns and cities just makes no sense.

They LOOK great h*****g over the fireplace

Curtis_Lowe Loc: Georgia

boberic wrote:

I can. ANY weapon

What about sharp objects?