> A strange, unsupported statement
You don't seem to think that the state being armed dramatically more than citizens is a problem.
Pretty sure my statement is supported 100% by this evidence.
>. "Yes, it's a small number." What steps would you take to make it smaller ?
Focus on the social problem causing the symptom of "mass shootings".
I find it highly unlikely that if these types of people moved towards using rental vans to commit mass murders you would be calling for the banning of rental vans.
I mean, 10 people died in the toronto vehicle attack - which is mass shooting level unacceptable, by your metric- what's your prescription for solving the problem there? Banning vehicles or? Certain types of vehicle?
The Nice truck attack killed more than 80 people!
I just find the anti rifle argument very confusing in the greater "mass killings" problem.
It's like being really really really hyper focused on banning a rare aerosol that causes 1% of lung cancer cases and entirely dismissing cigarettes.
"Don't whatabout me with cigarettes this aerosol is dangerous!"
Yes but if your goal is "less lung cancer" why aren't you expending your effort trying to get cigarettes banned?
Help me to understand why you care only about banning rifles (of a specific platform too, which is also super weird) which would make functionally zero real difference to the number of people murdered.
>but not universally enforced
As per the actual statistics it really wouldn't make much of a difference. Again, more restrictions for people who are already obeying the law.
"Enforcement" only works on the law abiding. Guns aren't really allowed for any reason in Chicago and yet....
>This thread is about mass shootings.
...if most guns used in crimes are not legal guns then it follows that most guns used in mass shootings are also not legal guns
I thought that was really obvious, but, there you go.
I like how you tried to shift the goal posts when you lost. Good job.
And, yes, I'm on topic with "mass shootings" - most aren't committed with AR-15's. So then, if you're honest, you're off topic, because you're making the thread about banning AR-15's, using mass shootings as your excuse. Which, again, weird.
>"They are designed to kill people." Yes.
No, they're designed to fire a projectile accurately at a target around 200 metres away.
Most mass killings are close range events, a rifle is a disadvantage. It's long, aiming it takes longer. Etc.
You didn't answer the question you just posted a link, a really tortured analysis too. It's very funny in particular that they talk about the killing effectiveness of AR's when a very small proportion of people are actually killed with them. Hammers are slightly more popular.
Which guess what?
They know. 
(By the way, the article does reveal the real reason they want AR's banned, but, I won't spoil the surprise because we'll eventually get there).
>The AR-15, on the other hand, can fire 45 rounds per minute. Modified with a bump stock, it can fire 400 rounds per minute or more. "
1)"on the other hand" its compared to a musket. You know every single semi-automatic handgun and rifle has the same rate of fire, right?
2) Bump stocks are against the law but regardless can be manufactured for many other non AR rifles
3) A high rate of fire is for providing suppressing fire, not accuracy. Firing the weapon at a high rate doesn't mean you're hitting things with it.
In fact the opposite, generally.
4) AR's are not designed for a high rate of fire and will jam or break if used in this way. The actual military version of this rifle - the M16 - has a cyclic rate of 150 rounds per minute for a reason. An average AR can handle around 15 rounds per minute before it starts to heat up and basically destroy itself.
Note: they don't often use fully automatic fire with the M16 for this reason as well, it is tougher than an AR but it is
not a machine gun.
5) Even if you could convert an AR to select fire with the same cyclic rate as an M16, it would
still not be practical as the weapon would not handle at that rate of fire.
Bump stocks would lower deaths just by the virtue of how hilariously impractical the things are. They're a toy at best. If you want to lower mass killing deaths with AR's, there you go. Promote bump stocks.
People who commit mass shootings with AR's are generally not "gun people" and will buy them like fools and end up hitting nothing and running out of ammunition. Problem solved through effective disinformation, what a perfect solution.
bonus round : The AR-15's "military" gas system also jams in practical use unless of course you are fairly experienced with cleaning and prepping the weapon, knowing which brands of ammunition it "likes" and
even then you might get a jam.
San Diego shooters AR jammed.
Parkland shooters AR jammed.
NZ shooters AR jammed.
If they'd been using a more user friendly and reliable weapon they may have been more effective, which, surely you would think is a bad thing?
You clearly have exactly zero firearms knowledge and so you accept these silly arguments as somehow a case for your side.
Still haven't justified a darn thing, just made assertions based on out of context and irrelevant facts.
