Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, so wait a minute, which one has the higher body count in the top 20 list, then?

I thought Robtard shut this line of argument down?

Also, yes, I am aware your argument was just the incidents themselves as opposed to the body counts.

Non ARs have the higher count, Rob is purpoesly excluding shootings that would have brought the non AR number to about 230

Plus, one of the shootings listed as Semi-auto rifle which rob counted wasn't an AR style assault rifle. it was the M1 carbine, which is a regular semi-auto rifle that predates the AR.

Well no, it's still in favor for the rifles. What's also telling is that rifles go into one category while handguns, shotguns and everything else go into one basket. If you were honest, you'd divvy them all into individual baskets, rifle, hand, shot, sub etc.

But we both know that the rifles would pull ahead even more if so.

The argument was never all rifles vs non-rifles. it was all AR style assault rifles vs everything else and in that. everything else has the higher death toll.

TBH, I'm not even sure what you 2 are arguing about.

There are too many factors involved in a mass shooting's body count in order to simply make death numbers the sole determiner of how effective a weapon is for any kind of mass shooting scenario.

Factors such as: 1) target density 2) time it took 3) number of shooters 4) location (w/c is another host of other factors such as availability of exits/cover, whether it is outdoor or indoor w/c will make it more favorable for sniper fire, etc) 5) non gun attributed deaths such as trampling deaths and suffocation, etc.

For this line of reasoning to be viable, it should be apples to apples shouldn't it?

I think a better argument can be made in terms of a weapon's advantages vs the other in certain scenarios/conditions w/c is then based off either on expert opinions or at least some known/documented treatise of the military.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
TBH, I'm not even sure what you 2 are arguing about.

There are too many factors involved in a mass shooting's body count in order to simply make death numbers the sole determiner of how effective a weapon is for any kind of mass shooting scenario.

Factors such as: 1) target density 2) time it took 3) number of shooters 4) location (w/c is another host of other factors such as availability of exits/cover, whether it is outdoor or indoor w/c will make it more favorable for sniper fire, etc) 5) non gun attributed deaths such as trampling deaths and suffocation, etc.

For this line of reasoning to be viable, it should be apples to apples shouldn't it?

I think a better argument can be made in terms of a weapon's advantages vs the other in certain scenarios/conditions w/c is then based off either on expert opinions or at least some known/documented treatise of the military.

I've tried to argue which weapons have the advantage in certain types of shootings, but I got ignored, insulted and accussed of trolling.

Right now I'm arguing that non ARs are used more often and further that more people have died to non ARs.

At the end of the day the point still is we had a shooting where 2 pistols were used and 33 people ended up dead.

You could ban all semi automatic rifles tomorrow and someone could STILL pull off a Parkland or worse using nothing but pistols.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I've tried to argue which weapons have the advantage in certain types of shootings, but I got ignored, insulted and accussed of trolling.

Right now I'm arguing that non ARs are used more often and further that more people have died to non ARs.

The guns that have the advantage in killing the most people in the shortest time possible in those situations are fully-automatic compact SBRs with high capacity magazines that are filled with hollow-point rounds.

Good examples would be the MP7 and the IWI Tavor (TAR 21).

Why aren't those used in mass shootings?

Speaking of fully automatic weapons. They are illegal normally, but there is a long expensive process to get one legally.

Well, I've decided that law is immoral, Firefly style.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The guns that have the advantage in killing the most people in the shortest time possible in those situations are fully-automatic compact SBRs with high capacity magazines that are filled with hollow-point rounds.

Good examples would be the MP7 and the IWI Tavor (TAR 21).

Why aren't those used in mass shootings?

Because it's very difficult and expensive to get fully-automatic weapons.

Think about this for a second.

Shotgun w/30 round drum and 2 9mm handguns w/100 round drums in the Pulse nightclub. how does that sound?

Originally posted by Surtur
Speaking of fully automatic weapons. They are illegal normally, but there is a long expensive process to get one legally.

Well, I've decided that law is immoral, Firefly style.

It's almost like you're not saying that when something is illegal, it's much harder to get it and therefore there's a much less chance of one ending up in the wrong hands.

Which is odd, as you've argued making say assault rifles like the AR-15 illegal would do nothing to stop them from getting into criminal hands. :0

Originally posted by Robtard
It's almost like you're not saying that when something is illegal, it's much harder to get it and therefore there's a much less chance of one ending up in the wrong hands.

Which is odd, as you've argued making say assault rifles like the AR-15 illegal would do nothing to stop them from getting into criminal hands. :0

Uh no, what I'm saying is it is a long and expensive process getting a fully automatic weapon *legally*. Keep up.

And therefore it's the reason why we don't see shootoers mowing people down with a full-auto as DDM mentioned, not easy to get due to generally being illegal. Keep crushing your own points, sport.

Originally posted by Robtard
And therefore it's the reason why we don't see shootoers mowing people down with a full-auto as DDM mentioned, not easy to get due to generally being illegal. Keep crushing your own points, sport.

No point was crushed kiddo, do better.

I see, you don't care if we have mass shootings, you just don't want them to use scary looking guns.

YouTube video

Can't say I have any issues with a teacher being armed if they have all the right permits, etc. and are responsible gun owners.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I see, you don't care if we have mass shootings, you just don't want them to use scary looking guns.

Well they will care if it's a white male doing the mass shooting with any kind of rifle.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I see, you don't care if we have mass shootings, you just don't want them to use scary looking guns.

You already tried this silly attack before, guy.

It's true, you don't care about other weapons being used. even though they outnumber the ARs in death toll. both in mass shootings and murders in general.

I don't expect you to stop pushing that BS anytime soon, you've been doing it for some time now.

Protip: Next time don't source something that crushes your own point

If by BS, you mean facts.

This doesn't include any number splitting where both ARs and other weapons are used.

Non ARs

Washington Navy Yard shooting 13
GMAC shootings 10
Red Lake shootings 10
Columbine High School massacre 15
University of Texas tower shooting 18
San Ysidro McDonald's massacre 22
Atlanta shootings 10
Umpqua Community College shooting 10
Fort Hood shooting 13
Binghamton shootings 14
Edmond post office shooting 15
Luby's shooting 24
Virginia Tech shooting 33
Camden shootings 13

Total = 220