Lmao, glad to know the goal posts and false-dichotomy callout are still affecting you. Although you’re incorrectly using both. Here’s a Virginia tech parent supporting background check and pointing out how nobody needs an AR. I’m sure an AR ban would mean a lot to him. Here’s also a thousand oaks person supporting closing the gun show loophole. Neither of these would ban pistols, but they’d do something.
If you want to go around and scream "ITS NOT MOVING THE NEEDLE ENOUGH’ I support your liberal agenda. But there’s nothing wrong with wanting to do something instead of nothing.
Both were used correctly, I think it’s funny you can’t take it.
So, you completely failed to address my argument in your response and went with some meaningless anecdote as usual. I’m going to just re-paste it and let you directly address the actual logic and facts of it. Prove to me that banning ARs would actually prevent these incidents instead of just having people switch to pistols which have been used to equal effect in equivalent scenarios.
People stupid enough to argue that banning assault rifles and not pistols would prevent these shootings are essentially arguing that if you ban Ford Econolines it would prevent vehicular homicide.
I get it, you focus only on the portion of the data set that agrees with you when (why you love anecdotes). Why bother to do a full canvas of the available research and actually look at the facts?
We identified two qualifying studies that estimated the effects of state assault weapon bans on different aspects of mass shootings. Gius (2015c) found that these bans significantly reduce mass shooting deaths but have uncertain effects on injuries resulting from mass shootings. Using a similar data set, Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016) found uncertain effects of state assault weapon bans on the annual incidence of mass shootings. Based on an assessment of these findings and the relative strengths of these studies, we find inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.
Also funny, the one article you cited under peer review for data mismanagement with the conclusion contested:
So we’re back where we started, make a solid logical argument, it’s funny to me that when you actually ask a liberal to prove a ban would actually be effective you get radio silence and a few links. Rand is an independent think tank and their canvas of the available research found it inconclusive. So, setting research aside, just make a strong logical case to me.
Prove to me that banning ARs would actually prevent these incidents instead of just having people switch to pistols which have been used to equal effect in equivalent scenarios.
Again, a ban would be effective. Look at Australia. I support a total ban my dude.
Logically, lets say the El Paso shooter used a handgun. Let’s say he was able to kill 21 people. 21<22, and therefore that is preferable to no ban. This should be evaluated on an offensive-defensive paradigm. You’re able to provide arguments as to why the efficacy of a partial ban is minimal, but prove to me that a ban would actually exacerbate the problem. Otherwise, a small impact is better than no change.
I’m not interested in arguing with you because you’re essentially saying "POLITICIANS ARE PROPOSING BAD POLICIES’ and I kinda agree.
Go through my comments, I’ve never said banning ARs is good and banning pistols is bad. I’ve said banning ARs is good…
A total ban would be effective (Australia). No argument there and if that’s where this eventually winds up, it’s not my preference but I would withdraw my criticism because it would at least be effective at it’s goal. Personally my axe to grind is with pistols, but there is zero traction there.
This is where I think you fail to logically make the leap. An AR ban would not be effective. Response to bold: You make an assumption of fewer victims but in an unarmed target environment this isn’t proven. Again, in Thousand Oaks and VT for example, there were MORE deaths in nearly identical environments. The evidence seems to also agree both anecdotally and across major studies be inconclusive (Rand). So what I’m arguing is that it is no change, not minimal change, no change. Even if we say OK, lets agree on minimal change, it simply becomes a doing something to do something and is terrible policy. In my view there are definitely and significant advantages to AR ownership that have to be weighed, although that is strictly a personal opinion.
If we ultimately are settling on the idea an AR ban would be minimally effective, would not stop mass shootings, but a bunch of people want to do it to feel like they changed the imagery, this is where I disagree with this course of action, but at least we’re agreeing that it wouldn’t create major change. I just think that if we both agree we want to majorly curtail mass shootings, then AR bans are unlikely to get us there based on evidence.
Fair enough.
So really what I’m trying to persuade you to see is that there are strong arguments an AR ban will end up not creating the impact you’re hoping for. I’m in favor of major regulatory overhaul and each time these things happen I go through the emotional response of thinking maybe we just need to ban ARs but as I run through the evidence logically, I’m always left at the conclusion it would be largely symbollic.
I’d start by wondering how in the hell I stepped inside a starbucks anyways - but probably just laugh because that man is obviously there to troll the most cuckening corporation on the face of the planet.
Makes me wonder, with all the Starbucks in San-Francisco why there’s even a homeless defecation problem in the first place.
After a quick ocular pat-down, I’d assess the threat level and likely conclude this guy just has a tiny penis and his genes are a bigger threat to America than the gun.
