The Gun Industry Should Send The Parkland Three A Gift Basket For Record Gun Sales in March

Wrong, the topic is about gun sales.

 

Both the UK and Australia still allow ownership of firearms used in mass shootings. Why don't they continue to have mass shootings? New Zealand allows ownership of military style semiautomatic rifles. How come they've never had a mass shooting with one?

Why did it take 48 years after the AR-15 was sold to the public for someone to use one in a mass shooting? Do you even know how many times in the last 54 years an AR-15 has been used in a mass shooting?

 

Despite being told the contrary, the current marches are orchestrated by the left to hide behind uninformed voices of children to bolster the left’s on-going narrative and attack on conservative voters. Black on black violence won’t result in marches because it will call attention to the left’s failure in managing communities where the violence is occurring and on the failures of their supported economic policies. It also, underscores the not well concealed racism of the elites among the left. The Democratic Party hasn’t changed in that respect for well over 100 years.

 

Uh huh.
From Harvard, that bastion of the left,....
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

I have never made a statement not based in fact; which has never prevented you from accusing me of dishonesty, without any factual verification of your own to back it up.

If you think I'm going to back through every post I've ever made just for your edification, you are sadly deluded.

 

An irrelevant attempt at diversion. Whether single-party homicides, gangland executions, or mass shootings in public schools, rifles such as the AR-15 are one of the least used firearms in the commission of such incidents. It is handguns, and only handguns, that make up the majority of firearms utilized for illegal activity, no matter what category is referred to.

 

Already agreed to that but has no relevence to the current prevalence in AR mass shootings.

 

Since there us no prevalence to any use of AR type firearms in shootings of any kind, their use is incidental an outlier.

 

A hilarious piece that you will note somehow manages to leave off the US on almost every chart! Do you wonder why, I don't!

 

sure, just like Las Vegas and Paekland are outliers.

 

Actually would just like to see you back up one post with facts. That should not be too hard!

 

Yes, they are few and far between in a Country of 326,766,748 inhabitants.

 

Gee, didn't realize they all commit gun crimes. Thanks for the info.

 

Considering a considerable number of anti gun publications come out of Harvard like this of the anti gun advocate, David Hemenway, I think you would have a difficult time claiming pro gun bias.

 

Considering the Harvard article links to the following charts show the US, did you not read the article and follow the links or ?

https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings
https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screenshot-6_18_2015-9_43_12-PM.jpg

 

Cite one post of mine NOT backed up with facts.

 

Show the supposedly documented "prevalence" that is being referred to by yourself in this particular regard, that would suggest the AR-15 and other similar rifles, are used in a disproportionate number of mass shootings in the united states, when all documented evidence shows the contrary.

 

Pick any one! Or do you not know what a fact is?

 

Considering what your post I find it amusing that you could question anyone about facts.

 

Quit dodging. You challenged my integrity and accused me of falsehood. If that's true, you should be able to cite an example of such. Otherwise, you are free to perform anatomical impossibilities on yourself.

 

Hey !
Some people can actually do that !
Don't ask me how I know, very flexible, read contortionist.

Feel free to perform anatomical impossibilities on yourself.
Hmmm, shamelessly stolen, yoink !

 

No I said you never back up your statements with actual data or facts which is inarguably true. That doesn't challenge your your integrity or your honesty it just says you never, ever have any evidence to actually back up your statements. Doesn't mean their might not be a tiny possibly you are stating the truth, it just means you can't provide any evidence. Who knows you might actually be lucky once.

 

Not to mention your question about proper English usage.

 

Weak, really weak. But the next time you make a typo, I'll be sure and remind you.

 

Assuming you could possibly recognize one.