That is what frustrates many gun folks is the attention on AR’s when the vast majority of gun deaths come from cheap handguns in the hands of criminals (which is illegal anyway) but the focus is banning guns used by legal gunowners, who are responsible for a fraction of a fraction of the harm.And as many people have mentioned, with 300 million guns in circulation, regulation is largely futile; the focus should be enforcing current laws IMO.under 5%; accidental death are almost exclusively handguns).
Again, lets compare it to flying, something you love.
Every year, roughly 400-450 people die in general aviation accidents.
Again, I’m sure you don’t see it this way because you see no use to AR rifles.
But I see no use to private planes; I think there is no reason for people who are not commercial aircraft carriers to fly, not to mention the vast and ridiculous subsidies private planes receive.
If you are not promoting a broad fix to a social problem then you are promoting a narrow "headline" grabbing stance, then on to the next"headline". The reader says: In response to your notes on the AR-15’s I think the pro-AR or at least neutral AR position comes down to that despite the high profile shooting, the actual deaths from AR’s are a small portion of total deaths and the lawful owners of AR’s don’t see why they should be deprived of their rights due to the illegal actions of others.
You, who do not shoot AR’s (or at all as far as I know) do not see these rights as important, and therefore see it as no big deal to take them away, regardless if it infringes on any rights, which you reject anyway.By contrast, there are roughly 210,000 private planes, so that would equal 1 death per 525 planes.So from a purely statistical standpoint, private planes are about 80 times more deadly than AR rifles.What if [the Las Vegas murdered] instead of buying a bunch of AR’s instead rented a Beechcraft Barron 58 (or something much larger, I’m not a plane guy), filled it up that barrels of gasoline and flew into an NFL stadium or concert full of people, something it seems he had every capability of doing? If there had been, and the government banned private aircraft and you could no longer fly, wouldn’t that piss you off?You are now prevented from doing something you love (and you only do it because you love it, there is no economic case to be made for private planes) because some evil act committed by someone unknown to you.***I appreciate the reader laying it out in this detail.Here are two obvious differences in the plane-versus-AR-15 comparison, from my (no doubt biased) point of view: Number 1: small airplanes kill a lot of people, but .What’s the mail like from those who reject the need for new gun laws? The first is — unfortunately, but realistically—representative in its tone and argumentative style of most of the dissenting messages that have arrived: No mass shootings else where? Mao...unarmed public....millions killed Russia....gulag.... KGB...unknown number killed....unarmed public Balkans.... Serb nationalism....thousands killed....unarmed public You can argue both sides until you are blue in the face, but the way this country's government acts I want to be able to protect those I love and my property.I also believe that this country has turned away from the concepts that made it great.Again, God forbid the Vegas shooter flew his plane into an airliner (which is actually quite difficult to do, but you get my point.None of those regulations can prevent that sort of act).