Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas dad freaks out and shows why it is past time we ban assault-style weapons & ammo (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Assault Weapons are used in 100% of Mass Murders (4+ / 0-)

    I find the NRA talking points you give deceitful.

    You are intentionally deflecting the use of Assault Weapons in mass murders and intentionally trying to re-direct the conversation.

    Robo, when it is YOUR CHILD's Funeral we are reading about because someone with an Assault Weapon used it on your child and many others

    ... please tell me how insignificant that so-called "30 person" figure you posted is to you then.

    Oh, you are wrong.  Last year more than 30 people were murdered in mass murder sprees with gunmen unloading their assault weapons.

    12 killed in Aurora
    26 killed in Newton

    Are you saying mass murders are ok, because not enough people are murdered so why should we bother trying to reduce the number of deaths caused by Assault Weapons used in mass murder.

    •  TeamSarah - in another diary Harry Reid (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Robobagpiper, BlackSheep1

      was quoted on three associated topics. First, he isn't going to bring any bill to the floor of the Senate that couldn't pass the House. Second, he thinks it's highly problematic that an AWB could pass the Senate. On a personal note Reid, a long time gun rights advocate, does not support an AWB.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:14:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Stop being an asshole (4+ / 1-)

      accusing somebody you disagree with of pushing NRA talking points is bullshit.

      pulling out the "you'd agree with me if your child died" is an unfair appeal to guilt and has nothing to do with what he said.

      You're wrong. Sorry, you're just wrong. Unless you define mass murder as "murders done with assault weapons," you're wrong.

      Jeffrey Weise murdered 9 people and injured 5 others with two handguns and a shotgun.

      Andrew Engeldinger killed 5 people with a handgun.

      Wade Michael Page killed 6 people with a handgun.

      Ian Stawicki killed 5 people with handguns

      T. J. Lane killed three students and injured 2 more at his high school with a .22 handgun.

      Jared Lee Loughner shot 18, six dead, with a handgun.

      The bottom line? You're out of line. Just as people need to treat you with respect in your diary, you need to treat others the same way.

      Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

      by dhonig on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:22:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Robobagpiper, BlackSheep1

      Mother Jones (hardly a right wing source) reports that the weapons used in the 142 mass shootings in this country between 1982 and 2012 were:

      68 semiautomatic handguns
      35 assault weapons
      20 revolvers
      19 shotguns

      Notice that 68 of 142 is just under 48%, which is less than 50%. Less than 50% is not the same thing as 100%.

      The Citizens Crime Commission of NYC offers an overview of significant mass shooting incidents from 1986 to Sandy Hook, a useful resource for the interested. The Chronicle of Higher Education has a good article separating myths about mass shootings from facts/reality.

      If we're going to have this discussion - and I think everyone here agrees that we must - then it's best to stick with facts as opposed to assumptions, myths and flat-out falsehoods.

      •  It's even worse - you quoted the number (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau, BlackSheep1

        of semi pistols, not "assault weapons".

        The number of assault weapons used comes in just under 25% of the 142 mass shootings in the last 3 decades.

        25% is even further from 100% than 48%. The diarist is fact-challenged.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:22:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're right. Thanks for the correction! n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robobagpiper, BlackSheep1
        •  Robo, so 25% being murdered is not enough to (0+ / 0-)

          warrant changing laws so that the number goes closer to 0%?

          Is that so.

          I think parents who have actually buried their children who had someone's "assault weapon" unloaded on them would think your nonchalance regarding them is pathetic and despicable.

          Lung cancer is the number 1 killer among all cancers, should  we stop looking for a cure for other cancers because not enough people die from them?

          Hey, Robo, I also noticed that you uprated the poster whose post called TS4C an "asshole" did you know it was against DKos policy to uprate a comment that insults someone?

          Read Under:

          Appropriate use of Hide ratings
          Any and all insults are HRable. Although users are never required to uprate any comment, it is considered a violation of site policy to uprate a comment with an insult in it.
          In my opinion if someone calls someone else an asshole just because they disagree with them, then that person who called the other an asshole is acting like a bully, and those who 'cheer' the bully on with upratings are bullies to.

          It seems to be a habit for some to hijack a diary when they disagree with the content.  Apparently some people think calling others "assholes" is one way to hijack a Diary.

          •  Way too many people (0+ / 0-)

            are murdered. The ones who get to die alone are no less 'important' in the scheme of things on this issue than those who get to die along with a dozen others.

            The diarist asserted - strongly and in complete disregard of the easily-confirmed facts - that 100% of mass murders are committed with assault weapons. The truth is that not all mass murders are committed with guns (of any description), and that of those which are committed with firearms, under 25% involve an assault weapon.

            It was my point that in this discussion it would be good to stick to facts rather than toss emotionally-invested falsehoods that just weaken arguments. This falsehood was asserted more than once despite having been previously corrected - and this time it was asserted more forcefully, as if that somehow makes it true. Along with personal insults - NRA talking point, intentional deception, spurious straw men (making up a position out of whole cloth so you can falsely attribute it). A falsehood doesn't become truth just because you call the person who points out the truth a 'liar'.

            Why, repeated assertions of known falsehoods might result in someone thinking of the asserter as an 'asshole'.

    •  No, they're present in only something like (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau, BlackSheep1

      1/4 of the mass killings of the last three decades, according to the stats published in Mother Jones (which were themselves massaged to exclude gang shootings and the like).

      The existence of year-to-year fluctuations does not disprove annual average values. It doesn't change the fact that mass killings in general, and killings with assault weapons, are extremely rare events, especially as compared to casualties caused by non-firearm weapons, and that the shrillness of the calls for their ban has nothing to do with the actual harm they cause.

      As for your assertion that I am claiming that "mass murders are okay", I expected that sort of demagogic retort.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:10:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The fact that they are used at all (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        keepemhonest

        and is the issue for me.  The primary function of those kinds of weapons is to kill people.  There are other kinds of firearms you can use to hunt and defend yourself.

        I would say the best way to measure it (and I don't have the data, so if you know of any please share) to compare the number of times assault weapons have been used in defensive situation where other alternatives wouldn't have been effective versus the number of times assault weapons have been used in mass murders.

        There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

        by slothlax on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:07:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So the actual harm is not the issue (0+ / 0-)

          It's the scary mean thoughts you assign to them you want to ban.

          That always ends well.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:37:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, ther is actual harm (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            keepemhonest

            You have to weigh the benefits of assault weapons against the fact that they are used in mass murders.  What benefit is there to allowing people to possess these types of firearms?

            I don't know of situations where assault weapons were used in defense where another type of firearm wouldn't have been enough.

            There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

            by slothlax on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:57:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Robo, so 25% being murdered is too low a percent (0+ / 0-)

        for you to care?

        Do you not want that 25% number to go closer to 0%?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site