Jeremy [Iowa]

Actually, the data shows that the assault weapons ban of 1994 was associated with a decrease in mass shooting deaths and the number of incidents

Correlation from causation aside, for this to have any real significance, there would need to be a drop in mass shooting counts.

That aside, your own citation shows any change in deaths is questionable at best - it looks as if the average may have even increased, by the included graph.

It also seems to pretend that _merely banning the sales of more “assault weapons” would have nullified the impact of existing assault weapons.

However, after the ban expired in 2004, there was an almost immediate and steep rise in mass shooting deaths.

Again, correlation from causation aside, for this to have any real meaning there would have to be only one changing factor… and the trend would have had to been consistent with a near-elimination of the count of events.

Can you truly think of no other changes? No, say, incredible spike in the media glorifying and sensationalizing such events, inadvertently promoting them as a means of getting violent retribution as one commits suicide?

It boils down to this: was there any direct scaling of such values with the actual count of owned “assault weapons”? Of course not.

It is important to note that many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups

Wow. So, you dilute the value of your own correlation by highlighting factors known to be common underlying issues, yet double-down on “suggest” and “decrease”.

It’s almost entirely that.

When you have nearly no-one who wishes to commit such atrocities as a violent suicide, it doesn’t matter what tools are available for the job.

Have you considered any of the underlying factors to such and how Canada might differ?

It’s also unlikely the US Military, being citizens of the United States themselves, would have a high degree of adherence to such orders to bomb and destroy their fellow man.

That anyone thinks such is realistic is indicative of the depth of delusion.

“decent” seems to be doing some heavy lifting here. A linguistic analysis of writings of the Framers cross-referenced against era culture and stats highlights the depth of your misunderstanding.

right there in the text

Ah - I see we’re not only cherry-picking, but we’re depending on a preamble e.g. a preparatory or introductory statement as somehow limiting of scope or indicative of audience to which a right was granted.

That, and obviously the proliferation of weapons has made mass murder accessible, and in the minds of some people as described above.

Are you under the impression such things were ever not accessible?

At what point did we start regularly testing and proving out water? When did we start ensuring school bake sale food must be store-bought? You seem incredibly short-sighted.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to as a “fetish” or an “unregulated” lobby. If you were referring to nonsense like the NRA and their fundraising efforts, you’d be obligated to highlight Everytown etc. and their blue-aligned fundraising. You can’t point out a wedge issue and one side without recognizing the other side and its equivalent benefit.

If one has a clean criminal history, is a legal adult, and - in most states - has undergone some additional scrutiny or proof of proficiency, then sure - they can buy a firearm.

Given how Afghanistan turned out, I’m not sure how you think the concept of resisting the armed forces of a government as a distributed and well-armed populace is somehow unthinkable.

It’s fair to say we’ve a cesspool of stupidity - but only due to our politicians continued neglect of actual underlying issues in favor of partisan wedge-driving and profiteering of the ad revenue of sensationalized violence.

Hyper-sensationalism of the violence and its impact gave those seeking revenge and suicide a convenient two-in-one option.

Suddenly, I miss the old days of Android. I suppose it’s back to CyanogenMod or whatever it is these days

Regulatory capture seems about on par for Google these days. I suppose I’ll be switching back to OnePlus for Android devices; that’ll be about it for Google stuff in my home.

I see we’re still pretending those are the only two options.

Biden really seems to be going for the “yikes” high score. Bold strategy just before election year.

Oh, it absolutely is. We’re seeing much of the same in the 9th Circuit.

I didn’t take that as the point of the article, though.

Leave it to Vox to make a lot of noise about nothing significant. I’m looking forward to their next reversal of tone back to but Bruen was a disaster etc.

I see we can mark off “double down on wartime economy boost” on the recession check list.

Frankly, I make solid six figures and still have a hard time even contemplating buying a new car. With how much value is lost short-term it’s like just burning cash.

I think the best vehicular investment I’ve ever made was a moderately-used Chevy Volt for, like, ~14k. That thing is a tank and still gets some EV / efficiency cred.

In the same sense that your response was in any way tied to anything stated, sure.

Considering your “source” is “trust me bro Garand Thumb showed it bro”, I’ll give your trolling concerns due consideration.

I have to suggest you take your own advice and, once more, highlight the absurdity of your position in baseless “lol no ur wrong”.

You’re right that Garand Thumb has great videos. You’re wrong that FMJ universally goes through human-form ballistic dummies. It can, sure. Is guaranteed to? Far from it. You seem to be pointedly ignoring the assumptions necessary for you to make such a ridiculous generalization.

Edit: had you mixed up with a troll; removed the irrelevant parts.

Im pointing out how absurd of a claim it is that small rounds run no risk of over penetration.

Oh, so you’re addressing something other than was actually stated?

You might want to revisit what I had actually said. Run no risk? Hardly.

It’s funny how much of a thrashing you’re getting for spreading this misinformation. Hopefully you consider it before the next, or first, time you pick up a gun.

I’m not sure I’d consider a handful of randos making absurd, baseless claims to be a thrashing - one could call it dogpiling, sure. Thrashing implies some sort of beatdown, though… and all you’ve brought is nonsense. If you’d been able to back up that misinformation nonsense in any way - say, by addressing and refuting points made - you may have had a point.