Evan
Member
Mother Jones of all places had a very good article on identifying the "next" mass shooter, and that they can somewhat be predicted based off of past profiles. One interesting point is that these mass shooters spend an inordinate amount of time planning their attacks. Some do it over the course of several years or close to a year. They meticulously study methods and weapons. They learn from the last guy. It is true that one of the reasons the AR15 suddenly became a weapon of choice is because of Newtown and Aurora.
What's unfortunate is, that outside of Las Vegas, I can't think of many of these mass shootings with an AR15 that wouldn't have actually been more effective with handguns. Most of the shootings and victims are located in close quarters. The AR15 isn't just chosen because of its inherent deadliness and magazine size, it's because the mass shooters feel empowered with a weapon that looks scary, can be accessorized, and it is something their heroes (other mass shooters) used before them. You will continue to have mass shootings with high body count because these people will learn and adapt. When people say it's not preventable that's not really true. I'll link the Mother Jones piece later. They can be prevented -- it's just that banning certain guns won't prevent them or reduce their lethality. The common argument against AR15s is that most of our most deadly shootings have occurred in the past decade or so, and the shooter used an AR15. But is that truly because of the AR15 or because these sadistic losers studied each other? Virginia Tech, using only handguns, with 32 deaths was the highest before the Pulse Nightclub. Before Va. Tech Luby's Cafeteria with 23, again handguns, was the highest.
I'll spare you the arguments about whether or not anyone needs a Hummer, a car with a 600hp engine, a 12,000 sq ft home or a million dollar wine cellar. I don't believe need is the issue here. The issue is balancing liberty and freedom against public safety. And if that's the case, just understand that banning AR15s will have a very negligible impact on public safety. I truly don't believe that anti-gun groups are unaware of that fact. They are very aware.
But the AR15 is a very attractive target because it scares people, it's been enshrined by the media as nothing but a killing machine, mass shooters have recently used it in some of the higher death toll events, and banning it would cost very little political capital while also doing very little to actually reduce gun deaths. You don't want to actually have a truly measurable impact on gun deaths when your goal is to eventually leverage the continued public outrage at mass shootings into total gun ban. They are playing a long game and this is just a first step. Not all of them -- some are sincere about doing anything that can prevent even one death. But the groups and people that matter understand the futility of banning AR15s in a country of 33.6k gun deaths a year.
They also understand how to manipulate the argument with their own "alternative facts." That's why most Americans believe the number of school shootings is on the rise. They actually aren't.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/349380002
That's also the reason why even WaPo had to bust Everytown for saying there had been 18 school shootings this year. An outright lie meant to scare people so they can achieve their goal of banning all guns. They included suicides in school parking lots after hours, a death at a closed school, and a stray bullet that hit a building of an urban community college. It's also why you will hear the Gun Violence archive claim there have been 1624 mass shootings in 1870 days. When your definition is essentially more than one person is hit by a bullet then a LOT of random gun violence becomes a scary "mass shooting" which for most Americans is a lurid picture of a an active shooter hunting people with an AR15.
Politifact, which has a good bit of liberal political bias actually plays it decently straight in their recent fact-check. They point out that most modern firearms are semi-automatic. This includes many hunting rifles and almost all handguns. They even point out how "cosmetic" differences (their words not mine) make up the bulk of the difference between AR15s and a lot of other rifles that very few people say a word about.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/feb/14/what-we-know-about-mass-shootings/
I just posted about this, but a group of Parkland survivors say they are calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles while saying they aren't looking to ban guns. You can assume they are just typical 16/17 year olds that don't know that would ban a huge chunk of rifles produced and sold today. But, they, if you can ban semi-automatic rifles I'm not sure how you are very far at all from banning semi-automatic handguns when the only major difference is the length of the barrel.
But everyone should understand how this form of political advocacy works. You use certain terms and phrases to scare, manipulate, and comvince. Like, say, "chain migration" vs family-based immigration or family reunification. You want to provoke an emotional response and lasting fear. You want to be able to convince even rational normal everyday people.
I know you understand this -- you mentioned it yourself. But just understand that this isn't about banning AR15s or the GOP making the AR15 a sacrificial lamb. I know you say that wouldn't be a death-knell for 2nd amendment rights. I don't think I agree. If they can use manipulation, emotion, alternative facts, loaded words, and misleading definitions to ban one type of gun responsible for a low single digit percentage of gun deaths, why wouldn't they be able to use the same tactics on guns that are actually responsible for 80+% of gun deaths? It's not like those kinds of tactics don't work. They elected the 45th President of the United States. Those kinds of tactics vanquished both his general and primary electoral opponents -- very formidable opponents that were well-versed in those same tactics.
What's unfortunate is, that outside of Las Vegas, I can't think of many of these mass shootings with an AR15 that wouldn't have actually been more effective with handguns. Most of the shootings and victims are located in close quarters. The AR15 isn't just chosen because of its inherent deadliness and magazine size, it's because the mass shooters feel empowered with a weapon that looks scary, can be accessorized, and it is something their heroes (other mass shooters) used before them. You will continue to have mass shootings with high body count because these people will learn and adapt. When people say it's not preventable that's not really true. I'll link the Mother Jones piece later. They can be prevented -- it's just that banning certain guns won't prevent them or reduce their lethality. The common argument against AR15s is that most of our most deadly shootings have occurred in the past decade or so, and the shooter used an AR15. But is that truly because of the AR15 or because these sadistic losers studied each other? Virginia Tech, using only handguns, with 32 deaths was the highest before the Pulse Nightclub. Before Va. Tech Luby's Cafeteria with 23, again handguns, was the highest.
I'll spare you the arguments about whether or not anyone needs a Hummer, a car with a 600hp engine, a 12,000 sq ft home or a million dollar wine cellar. I don't believe need is the issue here. The issue is balancing liberty and freedom against public safety. And if that's the case, just understand that banning AR15s will have a very negligible impact on public safety. I truly don't believe that anti-gun groups are unaware of that fact. They are very aware.
But the AR15 is a very attractive target because it scares people, it's been enshrined by the media as nothing but a killing machine, mass shooters have recently used it in some of the higher death toll events, and banning it would cost very little political capital while also doing very little to actually reduce gun deaths. You don't want to actually have a truly measurable impact on gun deaths when your goal is to eventually leverage the continued public outrage at mass shootings into total gun ban. They are playing a long game and this is just a first step. Not all of them -- some are sincere about doing anything that can prevent even one death. But the groups and people that matter understand the futility of banning AR15s in a country of 33.6k gun deaths a year.
They also understand how to manipulate the argument with their own "alternative facts." That's why most Americans believe the number of school shootings is on the rise. They actually aren't.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/349380002
That's also the reason why even WaPo had to bust Everytown for saying there had been 18 school shootings this year. An outright lie meant to scare people so they can achieve their goal of banning all guns. They included suicides in school parking lots after hours, a death at a closed school, and a stray bullet that hit a building of an urban community college. It's also why you will hear the Gun Violence archive claim there have been 1624 mass shootings in 1870 days. When your definition is essentially more than one person is hit by a bullet then a LOT of random gun violence becomes a scary "mass shooting" which for most Americans is a lurid picture of a an active shooter hunting people with an AR15.
Politifact, which has a good bit of liberal political bias actually plays it decently straight in their recent fact-check. They point out that most modern firearms are semi-automatic. This includes many hunting rifles and almost all handguns. They even point out how "cosmetic" differences (their words not mine) make up the bulk of the difference between AR15s and a lot of other rifles that very few people say a word about.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/feb/14/what-we-know-about-mass-shootings/
I just posted about this, but a group of Parkland survivors say they are calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles while saying they aren't looking to ban guns. You can assume they are just typical 16/17 year olds that don't know that would ban a huge chunk of rifles produced and sold today. But, they, if you can ban semi-automatic rifles I'm not sure how you are very far at all from banning semi-automatic handguns when the only major difference is the length of the barrel.
But everyone should understand how this form of political advocacy works. You use certain terms and phrases to scare, manipulate, and comvince. Like, say, "chain migration" vs family-based immigration or family reunification. You want to provoke an emotional response and lasting fear. You want to be able to convince even rational normal everyday people.
I know you understand this -- you mentioned it yourself. But just understand that this isn't about banning AR15s or the GOP making the AR15 a sacrificial lamb. I know you say that wouldn't be a death-knell for 2nd amendment rights. I don't think I agree. If they can use manipulation, emotion, alternative facts, loaded words, and misleading definitions to ban one type of gun responsible for a low single digit percentage of gun deaths, why wouldn't they be able to use the same tactics on guns that are actually responsible for 80+% of gun deaths? It's not like those kinds of tactics don't work. They elected the 45th President of the United States. Those kinds of tactics vanquished both his general and primary electoral opponents -- very formidable opponents that were well-versed in those same tactics.
