China has a problem with assault knives

[montana]

https://ussanews.com/News1/2019/09/05/chinese-man-kills-eight-children-with-knife-at-an-elementary-school-in-gun-free-china/

Crazy people will find a way no matter how many laws are past.

[stanc]

There's no comparison.

While private gun ownership is all but illegal in China, that hasn't stopped mass killings.

Apparently it has prevented mass shootings, though. So this attempt to deflect by citing China is more likely to harm the pro-gun position, and help the anti-gun cause.

Two mass killings with knives in China during the last year and a half versus more than five hundred mass shootings in the United States during the same time frame.

IMO, it's a really bad argument to make. It shows that gun bans actually can prevent mass shootings.

[LR1955]

Apparently it has prevented mass shootings, though. So this attempt to deflect by citing China is more likely to harm the pro-gun position, and help the anti-gun cause.

Two mass killings with knives in China during the last year and a half versus more than five hundred mass shootings in the United States during the same time frame.

IMO, it's a really bad argument to make. It shows that gun bans actually can prevent mass shootings.

500 mass shootings in the US in the last year?

[Double Naught Spy]

Funny how we don't like the term "assault" used to describe our weapons, but are happy to label other people's weapons with the same title.

500 mass shootings in the US in the last year?

Everyone wants a different definition, but if you go with the FBI's use of "mass" in "mass murder" then it is 4 or more killed in a single episode/location without a cooling off period and not including the suspect, then we have had hundreds of mass shootings in the last year where 4 or more people were shot in a single episode/location without a cooling off period, not including the shooter. "Mass" has to do with quantity and not location, circumstance, or motivation.

Most right wingers want to narrow that focus away from such a high number by only including "public mass shootings" that may be on private property, but out in public, not inclusive of anything familial or dealing with criminal activity other than the desire to kill. Some even go so far as to discounting in such shooting that doesn't result on 4 or more deaths other than the shooter. So a person could shoot 50 people at a sporting event, killing only 3, and it not be a mass shooting by the redefinition.

For most years, you are more likely to be involved in a familial mass shooting than any sort of public mass shooting. In other words, a loved one is more likely to kill you than a stranger. Also ranking highly are other felony mass shootings where the event starts off as something else, such as a robbery (e.g., North Hollywood bank robbery) and result on lots of people getting shot. These are often more numerous than "public mass shootings" such as what happened at Walmart, Tacoma Mall, etc.

Bottom line here, if you break down by the simple numbers, there are hundreds. If you start including all sorts of convenient excluders, the number drops conveniently.

What the public is most fearful of are public mass shootings. These are often the least common type per year in frequency, but may rack of higher body counts even if the total number of people killed or injured is below that of other types of mass shootings. These are the schools, malls, workplace shootings typically. They are the shootings that make the headlines for the longest periods of time.

[montana]

Funny how we don't like the term "assault" used to describe our weapons, but are happy to label other people's weapons with the same title.

I assumed it was a given, "when I used the word assault knives" it would be taken as a parity on how ridiculous the term is when used to demonize semi auto firearms and would not be taken seriously by any 2ndA supporter. Interesting and revealing. I posted the article to show how crazies will find a way to kill, even in a highly, over regulated society such as communist china. Unfortunately, "much like the book 1984" some people will not take the information as a lesson or warning against tyrannical leadership , but as an inspirational instruction manual.

Most right wingers want to narrow that focus away from such a high number by only including "public mass shootings" that may be on private property, but out in public, not inclusive of anything familial or dealing with criminal activity other than the desire to kill. Some even go so far as to discounting in such shooting that doesn't result on 4 or more deaths other than the shooter. So a person could shoot 50 people at a sporting event, killing only 3, and it not be a mass shooting by the redefinition.

Who are these right wingers you are talking about?

[Double Naught Spy]

You tell me. How many do you see wanting to consider anything other than single purpose (kill people) public mass shootings?

Most right wingers will not consider using data such as compiled here... https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/r.../mass-shooting
We are up to 300 for 2019, had 337 in 2018, 346 in 2017.

The nice thing about this database is that it is referenced and you can research individual shootings fairly easily.

An interesting part of the problem is that there is no formal definition that anyone wants to agree upon. Every time somebody does a major study, they tend to define it slightly differently than previous studies.

For example, the leading right wing expert, Lott, went with this definition...

Lott said he included mass shootings in which four or more were killed that occurred in public, and he excluded those that occurred within the commission of another crime such as an armed robbery.

https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/

So for his purposes, it had to be a mass murder before it could be a mass shooting and the shooting could not have occurred during the commission of some other crime, so again, if 50 people were shot at a public sporting event, but only 3 died, he would not include it as a mass shooting.

[montana]

You tell me.

No, you tell me. You are the one who is labelling people, "right wing" for what ever definition that meets your criteria. Do you consider every supporter of the 2ndA as a right winger??

How many do you see wanting to consider anything other than single purpose (kill people) public mass shootings?

Most right wingers will not consider using data such as compiled here... https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/r.../mass-shooting
We are up to 300 for 2019, had 337 in 2018, 346 in 2017.

The nice thing about this database is that it is referenced and you can research individual shootings fairly easily.

An interesting part of the problem is that there is no formal definition that anyone wants to agree upon. Every time somebody does a major study, they tend to define it slightly differently than previous studies.

For example, the leading right wing expert, Lott, went with this definition...

https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/

So for his purposes, it had to be a mass murder before it could be a mass shooting and the shooting could not have occurred during the commission of some other crime, so again, if 50 people were shot at a public sporting event, but only 3 died, he would not include it as a mass shooting.

How a group determines a mass shooting is usually determined by the goal of such group. Left wing groups, "or gun haters" never mention the crimes prevented by privately owned firearms or mass shootings that have been prevented by privately owned firearms. They also like to ignore the deaths in cities such as Chicago, since it doesn't really help their narrative for strong gun control. This is called politics by the way. So what is your point??? Do you agree with the antis that we need to restrict guns or ban them outright?? I'm getting mixed signals from you. I read a lot of complaints from you about pro gun rebuttals and statistics, but no opinionated solutions to these problems??

[stanc]

I assumed it was a given, "when I used the word assault knives" it would be taken as a parity on how ridiculous the term is when used to demonize semi auto firearms and would not be taken seriously by any 2ndA supporter. Interesting and revealing.

What I find interesting is the objection of 2A supporters to the term, when "assault weapons" was used by the shooting industry for many years to promote the sales and use of the AR15 and other military-type guns.

I also think it's ridiculous to insist that the AR15 is not an assault rifle, when it is a M16 manufactured without full-auto capability. And even that distinction effectively goes away with the binary triggers now available.

I posted the article to show how crazies will find a way to kill, even in a highly, over regulated society such as communist china. Unfortunately, "much like the book 1984" some people will not take the information as a lesson or warning against tyrannical leadership , but as an inspirational instruction manual.

The trouble is, you are actually making a very strong case for gun control. According to the article that you linked to, there were only two mass killings with knives in China during the last 18 months.

There were three public mass killings with guns in the US just during the month of August, and the total number of dead and wounded was much greater.

[stanc]

How a group determines a mass shooting is usually determined by the goal of such group.

The term mass killings is defined by the Justice Department as three or more killings in a single incident.

Left wing groups, "or gun haters" never mention the crimes prevented by privately owned firearms or mass shootings that have been prevented by privately owned firearms.

All mass shootings have been perpetrated with privately owned guns. How many mass shootings have been prevented by them?

[montana]

What I find interesting is the objection of 2A supporters to the term, when "assault weapons" was used by the shooting industry for many years to promote the sales and use of the AR15 and other military-type guns.

We already debated this add nausea.

I also think it's ridiculous to insist that the AR15 is not an assault rifle, when it is a M16 manufactured without full-auto capability. And even that distinction effectively goes away with the binary triggers now available..

You obviously have not personally compared the two. Like bump stocks, they are unreliable toys. My opinion. The AR-15 is not select fire which is a requirement for an assault rifle. Opinions are like certain body parts, we all have one.

The trouble is, you are actually making a very strong case for gun control. According to the article that you linked to, there were only two mass killings with knives in China during the last 18 months.

There were three public mass killings with guns in the US just during the month of August, and the total number of dead and wounded was much greater.

You forgot the other things that come with repressive governments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=VZKq4LVW8HI I have read Nazi Germany had a very low crime rate too.

[montana]

The term mass killings is defined by the Justice Department as three or more killings in a single incident.


All mass shootings have been perpetrated with privately owned guns. How many mass shootings have been prevented by them?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...up-so-can-you/

Once again, "my point was to show that even in highly restrictive and repressive regimes" the crazies will find a way to kill people. If living under a repressive regime makes you feel safe and secure, then knock your self out and immigrate to one. . Governments have never had crazies take over and harmed their subjects...... Oh wait a minute, they have...https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

[montana]

selling back to government.jpg

[grayfox]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14635[/ATTACH]

This is too precious!!!
And true!!!

[stanc]

We already debated this add nausea.

What is there to debate? It's a fact that gun people were perfectly okay with the "assault weapons" term until the anti-gun crowd started using it, too.

Then it went from "Assault weapons are cool!" to "There's no such thing as assault weapons!"

You obviously have not personally compared the two. Like bump stocks, they are unreliable toys.

1. I don't need to have used binary triggers, myself. There are dozens of videos showing them in use.

2. How well they replicate full-auto fire clearly depends on the skill of the shooter, but it's equally clear that in the right hands, they can replicate full-auto fire extremely well and have the potential to be much more than "unreliable toys." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFA2-2mdnRM

3. Even when used as ostensibly designed, binary triggers effectively give a semi-auto-only rifle a two-round burst capability.

The AR-15 is not select fire which is a requirement for an assault rifle.

A technical distinction without a practical difference.

Opinions are like certain body parts, we all have one.

Actually, that's not true.

You forgot the other things that come with repressive governments.

Nah, I didn't forget. The issue isn't whether or not some governments are repressive. It's what effect would a gun ban have on mass shootings.

You presented evidence that supports the anti-gun claim that a ban would prevent mass shootings.

[stanc]

All mass shootings have been perpetrated with privately owned guns. How many mass shootings have been prevented by them?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...up-so-can-you/

In the incidents described in that article, I don't see any mass shootings that were definitely prevented.

And here's the other (down)side of that coin which you like so much: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...?noredirect=on

Once again, "my point was to show that even in highly restrictive and repressive regimes" the crazies will find a way to kill people.

Yup. However, which do you think most people would prefer: Two mass killings by crazies with knives, or hundreds of mass shootings by crazies with guns?