Guns: how much longer will it take ....

The court rulings stand on their own.

Scalia in the Heller ruling stated that military weapons and the like are not protected by the second amendment.

Guns & Ammo are probably not part of what you pretentiously call "the MSM", and they glorify assault style semiautomatic rifles all the time. You know, put them on the cover of the mag and and all that.

That's true Baldimo, when a deranged fanatic shoots up a school, which seems to be happening quite a lot, the media will do its job and report the details, including the body count.

Most people find it repugnant and outrageous that our kids might get shot up in school, but pro-gun types like yourselves only see bad publicity for your precious toys, not dead schoolchildren.

And now you are calling for the media to abdicate their job, without realizing how bad you look doing that.

sceletera wrote:

Scalia in the Heller ruling stated that military weapons and the like are not protected by the second amendment.

That is incorrect. He stated that a weapon may be restricted if there is a very good reason for restricting it.

There are certainly some military weapons that there are good reasons for restricting, but being a military weapon does not automatically mean that there is a good reason for restrictions.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,

Where do you think he stated that in the ruling.

He stated a weapon can be banned if it is "dangerous and unusual"

Clearly Scalia stated that weapons that are most useful in military service, M16 and similar, can be banned.

Not only have AR-15 and similar weapons been used in more mass shootings but the the numbers killed have increased dramatically with the use of those weapons.

It doesn't take much work to figure out that the number of mass shootings involving AR-15 and similar weapons has increased.

Not only have AR-15 and similar weapons been used in more mass shootings but the the numbers killed have increased dramatically with the use of those weapons.

sceletera wrote:

Where do you think he stated that in the ruling.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

sceletera wrote:

He stated a weapon can be banned if it is "dangerous and unusual"

Being extremely dangerous would count as a good reason to restrict access to a weapon.

sceletera wrote:

Clearly Scalia stated that weapons that are most useful in military service, M16 and similar, can be banned.

Yes, if someone can provide a good argument that there is a reason to ban them.

But being useful to the military is not a reason in itself. There has to actually be a good reason for banning it. Like if the weapon in question is extremely dangerous.

sceletera wrote:

Not only have AR-15 and similar weapons been used in more mass shootings but the the numbers killed have increased dramatically with the use of those weapons.

An increase in lethality by going from handguns to rifles is likely.

There won't be any difference in lethality between an assault rifle and a rifle without assault features.

I find it interesting that you limit it to 10 or more dead instead of using the more general term of between 4 and 6 people shot, a mass shooting has never depended on the # of people killed.

Are we looking at mass shootings using an AR type rifle, or are we only looking at shootings with 10 or more dead? I find it interesting that you limit it to 10 or more dead instead of using the more general term of between 4 and 6 people shot, a mass shooting has never depended on the # of people killed. You seem to be conflating mass killings with mass shootings, when you start manipulating the criteria, it's easy to get the results you want.

Scalia makes no requirement that it be extremely dangerous nor does he require a good argument.

He uses the term dangerous and says that a weapons that is dangerous and unusual can be banned. A weapon that is often used to kill people would fit the definition of dangerous.

Don't put words in Scailia's mouth. He only requires it be dangerous.

As was pointed out in the 4th circuit ruling,

Of course the weapons must be exactly the same.

That must be why Charles Whitman was able to only kill 16 and wound 31 in 90 minutes while Charles Paddock was able to kill 58 and wound 851 in 10 minutes. A retired accountant must be that much better with weapons than a former marine.

Lethality is the capacity to cause death or harm. Which weapon caused more lethality in those 2 instances? Or will you pretend to not know the meaning of the word "lethality" which you decided to use?

I didn't limit it to 10 or more dead. I used the FBI standard definition for 10 shootings from 1999-2005 which is what you required from Blickers.

Now if I were to take the time to use the 4-6 wounded or killed standard for the last 6 years and discover that there were more than 10 in that 6 years compared to 3 or less for any previous 6 year period, what would your argument be?

So your argument is that a shooting where 10 or more people are killed is not a mass shooting?

7 over 6 years is still more than 3 over 6 years.

In fact by using only those shootings that resulted in 10 or more in the last 10 years doesn't help give the results I want.

It is exactly the opposite. I am reducing the number in the last 6 years by making the criteria higher. Are you really that ignorant or are you so blinded by your position you can't see facts?

Quote:

It doesn't take much work to figure out that the number of mass shootings involving AR-15 and similar weapons has increased.

It wasn't my work to do, blickers made the claim and failed to provide the proof, instead choosing to bicker with me about 4 shootings, even when I gave her the benefit of the doubt.

Are we looking at mass shootings using an AR type rifle, or are we only looking at shootings with 10 or more dead?

I don't even know what you are attempting here. It appears to be a false dichotomy. Mass shootings of 4 or more dead or injured is the standard you wanted to use. Mass shootings of 10 or more dead would be a subset of all shootings with 4 or victims. If the number of items in a subset for given years is more than the full set for other years then by the rules of math the numbers in the full set must be equal to or greater than the subset. I find it interesting that you limit it to 10 or more dead instead of using the more general term of between 4 and 6 people shot, a mass shooting has never depended on the # of people killed. 10 or more dead is a subset of 4 or more victims. This is simple math. You seem to be conflating mass killings with mass shootings, when you start manipulating the criteria, it's easy to get the results you want.

A mass killing where 10 or more people died as the result of being shot with a gun would be a mass shooting under any definition I can think of. Using a subset is hardly conflating anything.

Believe it or not, MotherJones has actually done some decent background work on this subject and they do admit that both terms "assault weapon and high capacity magazine" or both political term. For their study they used Diane Finestiene's 2013 assault weapons ban which declares high capacity magazines to be 10 or more and useless terms like "military features":
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein/
They say this info includes more current data through 2018, even based on their count, out of data available in the article from 1982 to 2012, there were only 20 mass shootings using an "assault weapon", out of 62 mass shootings. They expanded their mass shooting count to 39 from 2013-2018, the same years blickers used as her example.

Here you are doing what you just accused me of. I doubt you even looked at the data because you are clearly misrepresenting it. However lets start by using your fake numbers which again prove that there has been an increase in the number of mass shootings using a AR-15 style weapon.

You claim there were 20 shootings with assault weapons according to Mother Jones over 30 years. That comes out to an average of 20/30 or .67 shootings per year with an assault weapon. From the wiki list of shootings with over 10 dead there were 6 attacks that used an AR-15 or similar weapon from 2013-2018(June). That comes out to 6 in 5.5 years. 6/5.5 = 1.09 per year. That works out to about a 62% increase in the number of shootings per year. That is enough to be statistically significant but it could be just an anomaly. But there are problems with 20 shooting figure you used.

In reality, when you look at the Mother Jones Data, there were 20 assault weapons used in 14 attacks. Some attackers carried multiple weapons. If we wanted to use just weapons and not attacks it would be skewed heavily by the recent Vegas shooting where there were at 14 Ar-15 and 10 AR-10 type weapons recovered. But let's do the math with the 14 shootings over 30 years.

14/30 = .47 shootings per year using an assault weapon
vs the 1.09 per year in the last 5.5 years using an assault style long rifle.
Now we see the number of mass shootings has more than doubled.

But we have even more problem making that comparison. It seems you have tried to skew the numbers in your favor by comparing ALL assault weapons banned under the legislation proposed by Feinstein when using the shootings from 1982-2012. Of the 14 mass shootings from 1982-2012 that would have used banned weapons some of them didn't use an AR-15 type of long gun.

Columbine - used Tec -DC pistols that would have been banned. Long gun would not be banned.
San Ysidro McDonald's - used an UZI carbine - (carbine means it probably classifed as a long gun so we will include it.)
The Capitol Hill After Party shooting - used a shotgun and handgun. (Not sure why this is listed as assault weapons. The shotgun does come with bayonet attachment in some configurations.)

Now we are down to 12 shootings with a long gun that would be considered an assault weapon.

12/30 = .4 average per year over 30 years
vs the 1.09 average per year for the last 5.5 years.

I am seeing a trend here. The number of mass shootings with AR-15 and similar weapons has more than doubled. Certainly not an insignificant increase.

Let's look at it another way using Mother Jones mass shootings data, by decade with assault rifles.

1982-1991 - 2 (3 total - exclude San Ysidro)
1992-2001 - 3 (4 total - exclude Columbine)
2002-2011 - 4
2011-2018 - 9

The numbers aren't lying at this point. If we were to graph them by number per year we would see an upward trend line. Mass shootings using an assault rifle have increased. No amount of obfuscation can hide that simple fact.

As I pointed out according to the definition for a mass shooting, there were only 7 mass shootings with an "assault weapon" for those years, the other shootings blickers tried to slip in did not meet the definition of a mass shooting. Assault weapon? Are you attempting to manipulate the criteria in order to get the results you want? It certainly seems that way. We are talking about a subset of assault weapons that is long guns that fit the description of an assault rifle. Your attempt to compare a larger set (assault weapons) to the subset (assault rifles) would get you an F in any logic course. Even if we let you do that, we still see a 62% increase in the number of mass shootings using assault weapons in the last 5 years.

Quote:

Not only have AR-15 and similar weapons been used in more mass shootings but the the numbers killed have increased dramatically with the use of those weapons.

No, the most common weapon used in mass shootings is handguns, That doesn't make my statement false. It is only an attempt to deflect from the truth of my statement. "assault weapons" have been used in some of the deadliest shootings in the US, but they have also been used in self-defense. Simply another deflection. But in this case one you can't show any evidence of. Please cite your cases of assault rifles being used in self defense. I guarantee more people will have been killed and injured in Vegas than you can find examples of an assault weapon being used in self defense. Handguns are the most common weapon used in self defense and handguns are not assault rifles as you have already pointed out.
We can't weigh our gun laws on only the negative impact but also the positive impact as well. Guns are used 500,000 to 2.5 million times per year for self-defense. You really need to check your statistics before you post them. It could be as few as 60,000 according to the CDC 2013 report. I'll point it out again, but there is a reason why the anti-gun left ignores the Obama mandated 2013 CDC study on gun violence, the facts about guns and their use don't fit the anti-gun rhetoric.

Quote:

I didn't limit it to 10 or more dead. I used the FBI standard definition for 10 shootings from 1999-2005 which is what you required from Blickers.

Yes you did. This is why I quote people's words:

We have identified at least 49 mass shootings in the United States since the Columbine shooting. These are incidents where two or more people were killed, not counting the perpetrator.

"From 2012 to 2018 in 10 mass shootings that had at least 1o dead an AR-15 or similar weapon was used in at least 7 of them. "

Not to mention the FBI stat uses "4 or more", not 1o. What I required from Blickers was to show the increase using the same criteria for the previous 6 years, which she failed to do.

Quote:

Now if I were to take the time to use the 4-6 wounded or killed standard for the last 6 years and discover that there were more than 10 in that 6 years compared to 3 or less for any previous 6 year period, what would your argument be?

Why didn't you do that before, instead of changing the number to 10 dead? Lets also not forget the full actual definition of a mass shooting:
"A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence.[1] The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting"[2] as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition[3][4]"

Quote:

So your argument is that a shooting where 10 or more people are killed is not a mass shooting?

Stop trying to twist it, no one but you has used that definition for a mass shooting.

Quote:

7 over 6 years is still more than 3 over 6 years.

When I went through your first link, I counted several shootings with "assault weapons", but the number of people killed was 8 or 9, so those didn't get counted as mass shootings because of your choice to use the 10 dead stat.

Quote:

In fact by using only those shootings that resulted in 10 or more in the last 10 years doesn't help give the results I want.

Yes it did, you were able to ignore at least 3 or 4 shootings because they didn't match your BS criteria of 10 or more dead, that makes the earlier shootings seem like there were less shootings while the later dates make it look like there has been a significant increase.

Quote:

It is exactly the opposite. I am reducing the number in the last 6 years by making the criteria higher. Are you really that ignorant or are you so blinded by your position you can't see facts?

The ignorance is on your part, thinking you can play with the numbers to reach your conclusion.

If we want an honest debate on this, we would look at the total number of shootings instead of just the shootings with "assault weapons".

I provided plenty of links to some good info, I can't believe I'm saying this, by MotherJones, that you seemed to have ignored.

Lets also not forget how the left ignores the 2013 CDC study on gun violence.

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”

..weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, ..

..weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned