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

Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Saugus, Pleasantville, and on and on, guns, glenn, guns, some rifles, some handguns, , pretty much all semi-auto, all guns, glenn, guns.

Only if two of that list were installed on a
SEMI AUTO RIFLE
SEMI AUTO WITH DETACHABLE MAGAZINE (which includes banana clips and dum mags)
Without the first two, the otheres just become likened to the leather thong on a Red Ryder bb gun.




DONT YOU FORGET IT.

cut the nonsense]

Pleasantville:

A statement from the Camden City School District said no Camden High School students “were injured or otherwise harmed.”

"Unlike some of the shootings that have occurred on school premises throughout the country, this incident had nothing to do with the students of Pleasantville High School or Camden High School," Tyner said. "The venue simply presented an opportunity for criminals to pursue their own form of petty vengeance against one another. As a result, an innocent child was caught and injured in their crossfire."
__________________________________________________________________________________

Just like the incidents in your list of 44, this one does not match up to your "children being slaughtered" claim either. I think you're going to drag out those four incidents in which children were slaughtered, and try to superimpose that image onto all subsequent incidents when they don't meet that standard at all.

So let's get back to looking at the reversed chronological order of these 44 "school shootings" in which "children are being slaughtered."
_______________________________________________________________________________________

A 19-year-old student was shot by a masked gunman while getting out of a car at Achievement Academy, a high school. His injuries were non-life-threatening. Authorities believe an altercation occurred between the victim and shooter.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

So, is that your idea of school children being slaughtered because of semiautomatic weapons?

Cherry picking is the same as lying.

Oh I didn't pick those 44. Someone else decided to use them for their own purposes. And I'm going to go through each one to show them for what they are.

What is it about the concept of a school SHOOTING you find hard to accept? A shooting is a shooting,no one except you is saying it's only a school shooting if there was a semi-auto weapon involved. Your cited example clearly is a school shooting. You faii.

And the Pleasantvlle spokesman is clearly just trying to cover his own ass. HS football game cleary fits a school shooting. Dumbest attempt at a denial I've seen in months. Ranks wel up their trump attempts at denial of things he's clearly gulity of.

You're the one who decided to focus on violating people's civil liberties for fun instead of doing something to try to solve the problem.

Enjoy the massacres.

Yes. Exactly.

Progressives really, really hate facts. But facts are not nonsense.

That law banned harmless cosmetic features. The only reason why progressives support that law is because progressives don't care about saving lives. Progressives only care about violating people's civil liberties for fun.

He wasn't cherry picking. He was pointing out that progressives are exaggerating the number of massacres at schools.

You're the one who decided to focus on violating people's civil liberties for fun instead of doing something to solve the problem.

Oh I think you understand that my point concerns the rationale for banning alleged assault rifles based on the incidence of school shootings. You brought up the 44 school shootings in 46 weeks. So we're going to go through each one of those and find out how many of them meet the criteria being used by anti-gun nuts like yourself to justify banning semiautomatics in order to stop the slaughter of the children.

Why don't you enlighten us then as to the motivation behind the shooting?

I don't drink, either. But that has nothing to do with the question of why you don't call drinkers child killers. Alcohol is not good for defense, hunting, or any sport whatsoever. And yet it kills more people, including kids, than guns ever did. So to take a page from your own playbook, if you don't want to ban alcohol, then you don't give a shyt about the people who are needlessly dying because of it. Instead, you decide to go after people like me for claiming the right to own a gun for home defense.
_________________________________________________________________________________

So let's get back to looking at the reversed chronological order of these 44 "school shootings" in which "children are being slaughtered."
_______________________________________________________________________________________

A 19-year-old student was shot by a masked gunman while getting out of a car at Achievement Academy, a high school. His injuries were non-life-threatening. Authorities believe an altercation occurred between the victim and shooter.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

So, is that your idea of school children being slaughtered, and a reason to ban guns? Simple yes or no. Then we can move on to the next shooting on your list.

And just to show us all that you're the warrior for the kids that you make yourself out to be, why don't you tell us what you think about the FBI shirking their duty when it came to preventing Nikolas Cruz from shooting up a school.

See my last few responses.

I did. And I saw that you did not offer any alternative motivation for outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles.

The reason why you could not provide any alternative motivation is because there is none. The only motivation for outlawing semi-auto rifles is the joy that progressives get from violating people's civil liberties.

I also saw that your lies and name-calling prove your inability to defend your position using facts or logic.

I'm pretty observant.

You are mistaken. The law defined weapons with specific features as assault weapons. Superficial appearances were irrelevant to it's definition.

No mistake. The specific features in question were all superficial and did not make the weapons unusually dangerous in any way.



That is incorrect. Superficial appearances were what that fraudulent definition was all about.

I've explained my position on gun regulation thoroughly throughout this thread. You merely negate my position with opinions. I reject your opinions.