Washington Post Launches Anti-Gun Jihad

"A Rock River Arms AR-15 rifle. The weapon is similar in style to the one police say was used in the mass shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando." (text and courtesy washingtonpost.com))

In the wake of The Pulse nightclub massacre, The Washington Post has brought out its big guns to vilify civilian gun ownership, tying it to mass murder. The gun used in the Orlando shooting is becoming mass shooters’ weapon of choice lists crimes committed with AR-15-style rifles.

One common denominator behind these and other high-casualty mass shootings in recent years is the use of assault style rifles, capable of firing many rounds of ammunition in a relatively short period of time, with high accuracy. And their use in these types of shooting is becoming more common: There have been eight high-profile public mass shootings since July of last year, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine. Assault-style rifles were used in seven of those.

In the past 10 years, assault-style rifles have been used in 14 public mass shootings. Half of those shootings have occurred since last June . . .

. . . compared to other firearms, assault-style rifles make it fairly easy to kill or injure many people in within a short period of time. So perpetrators wishing to inflict indiscriminate harm on a large crowd of people often turn to them. Of the 10 mass shooting incidents with the highest number of casualties — killed AND wounded — in the U.S., seven involved the use of an assault-style rifle, according to Mother Jones’s database.

So . . . ban “assault rifles”! Again. Still. Except for the police, of course, who use them to kill mass shooters. Next up: Orlando shooting: The key things to know about about guns and mass shootings in AmericaWhich are:

1. Shooting sprees are not rare in the United States.

2. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall, but nearly a third of households still have a gun.

3. Active shooter events have become more common in recent years.

4. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in the United States, at least half happened after 2007.

5. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.

6. The South is the most violent region in the United States.

7. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

8. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence, but the connection is complicated.

9. Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular — and its popularity has been declining lately.

10. While general gun control isn’t that popular, particular policies are.

Nothing biased about that list. No doubt these posts presage a full-scale assault on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms; from the WaPo, the NYT and all the usual suspects.

comments

  1. avatar Bob315 says:

    Washington Post is so full of it. The Progressive media does not even try to hide their lies anymore.

    1. avatar Vv ind says:

      Not to mention using mother Jones as a source, a bit of a dubious resource itself

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Sourcing is getting to be a dubious venture.

        In college, several profs were OK with Wikipedia as a source – no sh*t.

        1. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

          Wikipedia is a great source of information *IF* you verify the information you find by checking the cited references. Some of them may be other websites that are also of dubious nature. However Wikipedia as a resource doesn’t work unless the submitted information is independently verified. Citing Wikipedia alone should get your paper returned without a grade.

    2. avatar JJ says:

      7. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
      8. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence, but the connection is complicated.

      This is so untrue. Comparisons of same region similar demographic states, those with more guns and less gun control have less homicide and violent crime.

      the Post is so funny when they have Maryland and Virginia right there, where they where they share major metro of DC ,have their own metros of Richmond and Baltimore, have virtually identical average age, income, education demographics. Where Virginia allows open carry by right, concealed carry is shall issue, there are three times as many per capita guns in Virginia, 28% more household ownership and well over 20 times the number of non LEO CCL carriers of Maryland, and where Virginia has way less murder and violent crime than maryland

  2. avatar Anon in CT says:

    I hate to get into this, but if one really wanted to kill the maximum number of people in a crowded nightclub you’d be better off just bringing a satchel full of loaded handguns and not even bother reloading – just drop the empty and grab a new one. An AR is less than optimal in a crowded space.

    1. avatar Cucamonga Jeff says:

      Better known as a “New York Reload” it’s a very effective technique but a backpack bomb or car bombs are even more effective. Just ask a Palestinian.

      1. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

        Blocked exits; gasoline; match(es)

      2. avatar Bob321 says:

        Recently, I watched several videos that dispelled the myth that magazine capacity limits have any affect during a mass shooting. They proved that time between magazine changes were so small that it provided no advantage to the victims to either fight back or escape. In one test, they demonstrated that this was true even with revolvers using the New York Reload.

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      Or, simply use a suicide vest. Bombs have more impact both from amount of damage that can be caused and a psychological one.

      I am waiting for one of these terrorist cells to simply ram a van full explosives Timothy McVeigh style into a crowed arena.

    3. avatar KC in nor cal says:

      As a wheelchair user getting out of even a lightly populated event under ideal conditions is difficult so the thought of trying to get out of anywhere during a panic is frightening. Of course I hope to never be in any type of situation that a quick exit is necessary but I, for one, fear attackers moving away from guns to other things, bombs and arson come to mind. Guns may jam and will run out of ammo. They can only focus on one target at a time. Also, not having any experience with either I would take battling a shooter over being trapped in a blaze but most of all I think one would have a better chance of surviving in a crowded room with a gunman than a raging fire, no need to be burned to death, many of the fire related fatalities I read about succumb to smoke first.

  3. I am sure restricting access to those guns will be as effective as restricting access to illegal immigration.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Guns don’t vote, even once, for a demtard.

  4. avatar Nanashi says:

    ” Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular — and its popularity has been declining lately.”

    But I thought the silent majority supported more gun control WP?

  5. avatar JDS says:

    Of the 12 deadliest shootings since 2007 none happened in gun friendly zones.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      “Of the 12 deadliest shootings in the United States, at least half happened after 2007.” That’s one of the most suspicious-looking statements I’ve seen in a while. Whenever you see a “statistic” that has oddly specific numbers and dates, it’s almost always a sign of someone cherry-picking numbers to make their point. Why 12? Why 2007?

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Damned good point.

  6. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Your most hardcore southern baptists are rank amateurs compared to your average Jihadist.

    The hypothesis of removing AR or AK’s will somehow null a jihadist is laughable at best and at its worst an encouragement.

    1. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

      i would venture to guess there are african american families pre-1965 who would disagree with that statement. yes, jesus was (is?)used as a justification as well – no religion has clean hands in that argument – hell, we can use jesus as blessing to kill communists to, no?

  7. avatar Kyle (in Upstate New York) says:

    “Assault-style” weapons were never banned in 1994. One could always continue to buy them, just with more limited features.

    1. avatar PAJ1988 says:

      We won’t make that mistake next time.

  8. avatar peirsonb says:

    Not sure this is them “launching” anything. More like the latest salvo.

  9. avatar Ing says:

    Isn’t it convenient how they talk about “high-profile public mass shooting” when they’re the ones who make them high-profile? That’s some very nice circular reasoning they’ve got there.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    Interestingly, the second-worst massacre of gay people in the US occurred at The UpStairs Lounge in New Orleans in 1973. Thirty-two people died as a result of fire or smoke inhalation and not a shot was fired.

    Of course, the UpStairs Lounge Fire was nothing compared to the Happy Land Nightclub Fire in my ancestral homeland of The Bronx, New York, in 1990. That arson fire killed 87 people. It was started by a customer who was kicked out, only to return with a can of gasoline.

    The most effective way of causing mass casualties at a crowded forum like Happy Land, UpStairs or The Pulse would be accelerated fire. And it’s only a matter of time until one or more of the jihadists — who are being invited into our country by POTUS and his partner in crime HRC — figures that out.

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Thanks Ralph…now Hillary will ban fire.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        Reminds me of this famous quote:

        “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Cesare Beccaria (Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria-Bonesana) From his treatise “On Crimes and Punishments” (1764)

      2. avatar Von Schmitto says:

        I’m not giving up my assault grill. Period.

  11. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Washington Post Launches Anti-Gun Jihad
    No. For the Post, this is just another day.

  12. avatar Dave says:

    Bullshit! That’s like bannin soft drinks so people don’t get fat, and then saying that states that ban soft drinks have fewer people getting fat from soft drinks. This of course neglects other sources, like snacks, candy, and general overeating.

    These stupid liberals think that dying from a bomb, knife, or baseball bat is somehow not as bad as being fatally shot. When guns are banned, gun death may go down, but deaths from other weapons goes up, and the total almost always goes up, because people can’t defend themselves as well without a gun.

    It is a crock of shit to think that 15 people getting bludgeoned to death is somehow better than 8 people being shot and 2 people being bludgeoned to death.

    1. avatar thewiz says:

      Um, Bloomberg tried the soft drink ban in NYC. and now philly gonna tax you 3 cents an ounce. which hurts the minorities the hardest. yet liberals are all for standing up for the little guy /sarc/ f em, they’re always afraid of the strong willed

  13. avatar Bob says:

    He BOUGHT IT LEGALLY! In a state where guns are more widely accepted. He passed Background checks! Pfft. Who to Blame, The Gun, The System, the MAN?

    No matter what, the Government Cannot get rid of All the guns. They can make it harder to get NEW ones, but There are Possibly Hundred million guns out there and there is no possible way to restrict that. Background checks must be harder and more indepth(no problem with that as most people are law abiding and not wanting to go out and kill people), Make a new system that identifies possible threats more easily and make the info cross available with agencies.

    1. avatar PAJ1988 says:

      Maybe not, but they can make the consequences hurt so bad that 99.9% will comply.

      Just say the magic words, “Civil Asset Forfeiture” and white people fall in like like dominoes.

      Move everything under the purview of the NFA and don’t allow any transfers after everything is registered.

      Collect weapons upon owner’s death.

      Easy peasy.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        Let’s imagine for a second that I was on board with draconian gun control. How exactly would you enact civil asset forfeiture for people who fail to register? There are tens of millions of them, and you don’t know who they are. That aside, what could be forfeited besides guns and ammo? The gun safe?

        Anything beside that and what you’re demanding is a wholesale expansion of the already abusive civil forfeiture doctrine. Even if I supported full-retard gun control, I would oppose you in this. Do you really think that such power, once given, would only be used against the targets of your hate?

        I’m going to let you in on a dirty little secret here. The powers we gave the government every time we were pissed off about some rich, privileged big fish getting off, they turned around and used mostly on the poor and minorities. Have you seen any frat houses seized as drug instrumentalities lately? How many Wall Streeters’ yachts have been confiscated on account of their cocaine habits?

        I’d bet good money you don’t have guns, but it’s beyond certain you have no principles.

        1. avatar peirsonb says:

          Not big on hypotheticals?

      2. avatar Bob321 says:

        I recently read that Australia managed to get a 19% compliance rate with their strict gun laws. This means that 81% of gun owners prior to the gun ban ignored the law. I have heard that New York managed to get a 5% compliance rate on their “Safe” act. I think this notion of willful compliance to unreasonable laws is a myth…propaganda.

      3. So why could not civil asset forfeiture shut down the Crips? Or the Black Gangster Disciples?

  14. avatar kevin says:

    I like Top-10 lists. Let’s start our own:

    1. When a person bent on mass shooting is stopped by a civilian or LEO, a mass shooting is prevented, and is therefore not counted on any list, nor reported in the national media. It is like the seatbelt that saves a life in a collision- it is a non-reported event.
    2. Banning or restricting access to guns (i.e. sales to private persons) is not likely to have any effect, because guns are readily available on the illegal market in every country on earth. It would be no different in the USA.
    3. If we accept that a person has a right to fight back against an attacker, then it only makes sense to give that person an effective tool to do so. It is manifestly unfair to tell someone that it is okay to defend themself, then deny them the very best tool for the job.
    4. Owning a gun no more makes a person dangerous than owning any other dangerous object, like a can of gasoline, a baseball bat or a car.
    5. Just because someone owns a gun doesn’t mean that they will misuse it. (I don’t believe I have to state something so obvious, but I guess I do.)
    6. Mass shooters are almost always stopped when they meet armed resistance, either at the hands of police or civilians. They are cowards, and their “plan” usually ends with suicide.
    7. Civilians need firearms to protect themselves from criminals in the same way that police do. Even more so, because criminals usually target civilians, not police, and police are rarely at hand to immediately protect civilians from criminals. If you wouldn’t take firearms away from police, you shouldn’t take them away from civilians, either.
    8. Even if you could remove from existence all firearms, the victors of conflict would simply be the mightiest; the weak (female, elderly or few in number) would be victimized by the strong (younger, bigger, or greater in number.) Without the equalizing nature of firearms, the weak would be at the mercy of the strong.
    9. People familiar with guns, their operation and use, are rarely in favor of banning guns. People who are ignorant of guns are often afraid of them as well.
    10. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to rely upon armed men and women for protection, but deny people arms to protect themselves.

  15. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Who reads a newspaper anymore?? Let alone just because it says so makes it true??
    Id like to believe most Americans except the dedicated libritard. Knows better then to blame a gun for its ease of use.
    Same crap is printed in the Media time after time.
    Id like to believe the articles are prewritten with a fill in the blank reply. Always the same thing.
    Blah blah used in killings but real use in every day crime is not even a statistic that’s measurable.

  16. avatar Keystone says:

    Bodies are still warm and they’re doing this.

    Fuck these people, and these publications. That’s all there is to say.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yup.

  17. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Jihad huh? Moose-lim,wife beater,investigated by the FBI, “enhanced gun license(whatever that is,security guard(isn’t THAT related to a COP)? Trump for president!

  18. avatar Chadwick P. says:

    Gun ownership is declining? How do ya figure that Washington comPost?

  19. avatar Stinkeye says:

    I think there’s a bug in the new site code. The date stamp for this story says, “2 hours ago”, but the headline, “Washington Post Launches Anti-Gun Jihad” seems to be describing something that happened 25 years ago.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      What a breathtakingly ignorant comment.

      WaPo has been on its anti gun jihad since the 1960s at least! That means AT LEAST going on 50 years.

      OK, it wasn’t “breathtakingly ignorant,” you were just too kind to them. Carry on, sir!

  20. avatar Ross says:

    Here’s my prediction: One of the usual suspects will put a Bill into Congress by Wednesday (at the latest) to ban all semi auto firearms that take a detachable magazine holding over 5 rounds and the ban will include all magazines and there will be no grandfather clause, “Mr & Mrs America hand them all in”

    1. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

      i think it will be an “executive order” (never heard of those until GW Bush)…get ready for another 2012-14 run on ammo to begin this week.

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        Executive Orders have been around since George Washington first took office. He issued one.

        I’m not so much interested in the number of EOs, but the intent of each one.

        But just out of curiosity, I had to look up the President who issued the most during his time in office. It was Frankline D Roosevelt, 3,522 with also the fewest days in office between EOs. Washington, obviously, had the most days between EOs.

    2. avatar thewiz says:

      qouting fiendstien? come to think of it, if there was an age limit on members of congress, pretty sure there would be a major conservative majority.

    3. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Nah, it’s an election year. Rather than use it as an excuse to pass more gun control (at the federal level, at least), they will instead use it to motivate the rubes that vote for them and stoke the fundraising fires. With just a few months to go before the election, they’re not going to go to the mat now over gun control when they can instead tell their base that if they contribute just a little bit more, this time they’ll get rid of those evil guns forever.

  21. avatar MudPuppy says:

    for the Post, that was a fairly balanced list. Still relying on advocacy research of course, but better than normal.

  22. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Let the liberals give up their private armed security first.
    Like Dianne Feinstein did in the 1970s.

    1. avatar thewiz says:

      yeah, but then she got her carry permit

  23. avatar pwrserge says:

    So, can we string the editorial board up for material support of terrorism yet?

    1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      During the Second American Revolution we can.

  24. avatar Ogre says:

    I expect nothing less from Pravda on the Potomac and its ideological cohorts. The only people that believe itsr tripe are already True Believers.

  25. avatar IYearn4nARnCali says:

    WaPo is fish wrapper or prepper toilet paper, never going to be better than that.

    NRA, GOA, etc need to hit the single point that if the FBI had this guy under surveillance, put him on that lovely no-fly list they love to add people to, denied him a gun through the NICS system already in place, and contacted local law enforcement to surveill him as a person of interest then PERHAPS this would have stopped before it ended. Had any of those poor victims had been carrying concealed, perhaps this would have stopped before it started, if any of the people in the area had been carrying concealed then perhaps, this would have stopped sooner.

    Why does CNN, MSNBC, Hillary, Obama, et al, have to shit in my ears about how denying access to a simple machine for everyone is the answer when I just outlined above the only REAL answer to this specific situation?
    Why oh why, if the terrorist who did this was under FBI investigation for talking radical garbage was he then under investigation a 2nd time, and allowed to get a job as a security guard, with access to a firearm, when he should have had his rights removed until they could ascertain his intentions?

    How is a man able to be under FBI investigation twice, TWICE, able to buy ANYTHING in the continental US and not have every cop within a 20 block radius, cavity searching him for contraband? Who does he think he is, a Clinton?

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      prepper toilet paper

      Maybe you’re willing to put up with shitty absorbency and black ink all over your ass; I’d rather stockpile real toilet paper.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      I want to know how many similar investigations are conducted annually over the last 15yr by the FBI where:

      The individual goes on/does not go on the no fly list.
      The individual is Moslem and goes on/does not go on the no fly list

      My bet is that you will see a significantly lower % of Moslem not being selected during the last 7 yrs. They are a protected class.

  26. avatar mirgc says:

    Motherjones has a spreadsheet that they attached to one of their ‘ban assault weapons and magazines’ articles. They keep it up to date.
    According to them and their own liberal definition of ‘assault weapon’, it was less than 15% of mass shootings.

  27. avatar thewiz says:

    we probably have close to 3/4 of a million of those scary black rifles down here in Florida. Along with rednecks and oath keepers. somehow I don’t think a ban on them will be effective.

  28. avatar MiniMe says:

    WaPo lies again?

    Shocker. 😐

  29. avatar Steve Clark says:

    “Deadliest mass shooting in the United States”?! Well, if acts of war are now considered “mass shootings” it seems to me that Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War easily beat this one.

  30. avatar W says:

    “There have been eight high-profile public mass shootings since July of last year, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine. Assault-style rifles were used in seven of those.”

    Are we looking for trends and statistics? Because there are some other trends and statistics that could be noted.

  31. You should read the comments on the WaPo site.

    Here is one of mine.


    Indeed, federal law allows people on terror watch lists to purchase guns, and thousands of them have done so.”

    What crimes do people have to commit to end up on the terror watch list?

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      I might note that nothing, legally or morally, prevents the FBI from cross-referencing NICS checks with terrorist watch lists as long as they don’t deny the transfer on that basis. There’s nothing stopping them from throwing up a red flag and investigating that person. It is, after all, a watch list, not a strip-them-of-civil-rights-and-forget-them list.

  32. avatar JohnS says:

    How does one distinguish this latest emission from WaPo from any random Tuesday?

  33. avatar Von Schmitto says:

    “Washington Post Launches Anti-Gun Jihad”
    Of course they have! BOHICA boys and girls.

  34. avatar Von Schmitto says:

    The crazies over at Salon.com are really going all in now. I wish the Pink Pistols would make stand for this one.

  35. avatar Scott says:

    I swear if I hear or see assault “STYLE” rifle again I’m going mad. These people are masters at manipulating language and words. Enough people caught on to the BS behind assault rifle, so now it’s assault STYLE to make it even more generic.

  36. avatar Tym O'Byrne says:

    So, who called for a ban on pressure cookers after Boston? I hope y;all dont bother if i dont wait for a reply.

    Big war coming, stock fat and deep.

  37. avatar Steve A says:

    What’s not true about the WaPo article? Yes there’s bias and spin but the facts reported are correct and Mother Jones as a source was revealed. Seems to me your Jihad (the 10 assumptions) trumps the Post’s. Nothing new anywhere. The “usual suspects” all. Kick it up a notch. Ya gotta do better than that.

  38. avatar HuggyBear says:

    She approved 165 billion dollars worth of arms sales to countries that donated to her campaign.

  39. avatar LHW says:

    Same crap, different day.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email