>Not at all, just returning fire after yours. I answered your queries directly, which is more than I can say for you. I try not to be frustrated and snippy but it's difficult when people deflect as much as you. I don't mean that as an insult - I should probably be more charitable since I doubt you have the time or predisposition to argue in such a long form way as I do.
>From memory, 7.62 SLR & GPMG "you could have googled that and it proves nothing" lol
Regardless You commented that the AR-15 was a "rapid fire" weapon.
If you've used an SLR and a GPMG, which of these two firearms would be considered "rapid fire".
>That's a question you have yet to answer, not an attack. You posed the question as an attack on me "you haven't". It's not relevant anyway. You're arguing from the position of a tiny fraction of gun violence and your solution is limiting law abiding citizens access to specific weapon types. That's what we're arguing. There are other answers to solve things like these mass shootings but they have nothing to do with legal firearms or specific types of weapons - the public mass murders are a cultural artefact. Gotta fix the culture itself.
>Are you that convinced as to the accuracy of the US legal system not to convict an innocent person to death ? "innocent until proven guilty", of course.
But in return, I ask - is it not obvious that disarming the law abiding does nothing for criminal gun violence?
You're focusing on small number outcomes, but, again, look at Mexico. If the US massively limited private legal ownership of firearms they would end up with more gun violence, because US gun violence is cultural - and not to do with private legal firearm ownership.
So, on the one hand your rebuttal seems reasonable (innocent people will die!) but they're already dying in huge numbers. Again, gun violence overwhelmingly occurring with inappropriately held handguns. Semi-automatic rifles are not really a part of that equation.. so not sure how regulating them further helps.
You also haven't explained how it will help very much - potential mass shooters will just use handguns to probably greater effect.
Banning private car ownership would prevent incidents like Waukesha from happening but is that a practical or reasonable response?
It always makes me wonder why the response to mass shootings with semi-automatic rifles is "ban this gun" and yet other incidents of mass death and destruction lead to no calls for legal changes. I don't know why that doesn't make you suspicious either. There's a very obvious pattern,
>Do you agree ? Sort of. Practically, yes of course it makes sense, undeniably so, but ethically, no, because it gives the state uneven power over citizens. The 2A seeks to balance martial power between the state and citizens, I don't really know how to practically balance things like personal information.
>So, your issue is with the FBI & CDC as their definitions are the most commonly used criteria. So then do you have an issue with the GVA definition? You don't like the big numbers, what is it exactly that you disagree with?
Although with that said, your issue is also with the FBI and CDC as their definitions practically speaking means the prevalence of mass shootings is hardly an issue in a country the size of the US and it leaves your argument kind of weak. Indeed the argument that banning semi-automatic rifles will save lives is very weak. I don't see that you've justified it adequately.
This is functionally your argument: "No one needs an AR and it will save lives!"
Neither premise can really be argued with as they're both true.
No one needs to drink alcohol and it will save WAY more.
Both premises true! But I have the bigger number. Let's ban that first - don't you agree?
