Originally Posted by Fedaykin
You're trying to compare crimes (individual murders) of opportunity to mass murders. Murders of individual people (often without premeditation) to carefully planned mass murder. The comparison is not valid.
Of course a whole lot more people get killed by pistols and fists, there are a lot more people with pistols and fists and a whole lot more people with motive (with or without premeditation) to kill! No matter what weapons are available, the rate of these types of crimes won't be affected (the NRA stooges are quite right about that much at least).
But, when someone wants to kill as many people as possible in, say, a theatre or school, they don't try to beat them to death or take just a pistol.
Again, you're comparing apples or oranges. You're aggregating the actions of a huge number of people (the entirely of gun violence in the country) to the actions of a single individual wanting to commit mass murder.
The reason assault weapons are getting a lot of attention right now is because they've been used to commit mass murder a lot recently. And as I've said, the capabilities of assault weapons to enable that type of crime are a legit concern.
So, you are now going to argue that collapsible stocks are
a problem after all huh? After all, if I can collapse the stock, I can more easily hide my weapon!
In this very thread, we have Beavis and cut inadvertently admitting that ammunition capacity, recoil, weapon size, weapon caliber, and background checks are at least contributing factors to the lethality of a weapon.
Yet, the only two arguments we will still hear from them are "but it's my right..." and "then only the criminals will have..." There is no "good faith" in discussions on gun control.