Just a friendly reminder that this thread was specifically started (see the OP) as a response to a request for “facts” that argue against an AWB.
So far, we’ve been provided with none. Rather than turning this around so that it becomes just another example of one side in the gun debate producing empirical evidence, I would prefer that the OP follow through and provide the facts he avowed that he had.
Can we please have those facts, so that we can then evaluate them?
Post 15 spoke of handguns with large magazines, you are taking a leap thinking that due to NEW handguns being sold with 10 round instead of 12 or 15 round magazines, mass shootings declined. I fail to see how a limit of a few bullets would stop someone from committing mass murder. Please elaborate if I am missing something.
The cosmetic features do not significantly change the look of the weapon and they certainly don’t do much towards the functionality, that’s the whole point. Plus, it must be said again that there was no limit on sales of existing AW’s post ban. The only guns that were affected was anything that was made new after the law went into effect in 1994. If it took an AR-15 with a bayonet lug, or a tec 9 with a barrel shroud to get a guy inclined to shoot up his office, he could still go get one.
FYI, my daughter has a hot pink AR. It functions the same as a black one.
Your point should be directed to the OP, not me. I asked for facts based upon a statement in an other post. You and I are equally left wanting.
The Virginia Tech shooter used both a 9mm and a .22. I have not seen a breakdown of how many victims died from each weapon, but my reading of the one report I found in a quick Google implies the 9mm was used more often.
The OP said less than 400 people have been killed with an assault weapon since 2004.
That’s a pretty good fact. I bet more people die on bicycles every year.
This figure is a bit disingenuous. Actual homicides committed with firearms in the USA is under 10K.
But you make many excellent points, otherwise.
Difference in what? Less guns of a certain type were sized, so? Were less innocents murdered with those types of guns? No. Unless that number goes down, there is no evidence that “ban would be effective” or that “evidence that the ban was working”
I think they have much better option than trying to pass ineffective bans. LBJ confronted gun control after RFK and MLK wwere assassinated and he tried to get national licensing and registration (two things that Scalia felt passed constitutional muster (at least if enacted by a state)) but he lost his momentum and initiative when a senator from Maryland tried to go after more extreme legislation isntead (he subsequently lost his seat based on his extreme gun control position.
There is a smart way to do this and a retarded way to do this and going after an AWB is the retarded way.
How many of those people do you bet are murdered with bicycles?
More people are killed by hammers every year than assault weapons.
More people are killed by baseball bats every year than assault weapons.
More people are punched to death every year than killed by assault weapons.
The list is fucking endless.
This is the only thing I would partially agree with, but the loss is more telling in that it highlights the insanity of the anti-gun control crowd rather than the pointlessness of the AWB ban crowd. With the Republicans we have in office, I have little faith that had Sandy Hook happened and Obama and the Dems only pushed for licensing, registration, and background checks, that much of the Republicans would vote for it.
These are the same people who thought the UN was going to take homeschooled kids away by ratifying a US-based treaty for the disabled and had Bob Dole in a wheelchair come out to support it. These are the same people who unironically count Paul Ryan as a intellectual heavyweight, and the likes of Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachmann as its most ardent members. These are not sane people.
Why must we pretend that this is the case? But of course this is precisely the problem. While it may sound simplistic to say that taking guns out of the hands of Americans will fix our gun violence problem, this doesn’t make it any less true.
Agreed.
I am not interesting in fixing “our GUN violence problem” I want to fix “our violence problem”. Gun control has not had a significant effect on violent crime rates.
Thus, it’s not true.
As to the OP, I 'd agree that banning “assault weapons” didn’t do much good. As to your comment, I say ban handguns and see where that gets us. That is, if we are serious, as toofs says, in really wanting to reduce gun deaths. But of course, we are not truly interested in any such thing, and I well know it. I apologize for even bringing this up.
Well, we can’t ban handguns without amending the Constitution. And again, why don’t we want to reduce all violent deaths instead of just " gun deaths"?
Gun control has not significantly reduced violent crimes rates.
So, yes, I’d love to reduce violent crime. Got any ideas?
We certainly want to reduce all deaths, but this thread is about guns.
To answer your question, my idea is also the reason for my apology. To get rid of handguns we’d have to amend the Constitution, and this won’t happen. I would say a guy can dream, can’t he, but what’s the point?
Agreed. We have a violence problem, regardless of the tool chosen to hurt others.
Meaningful licensing and registration are much more controversial than magazine size limits (those limits being the one part of an assault weapons ban that has or had the most chance of passage). Even in Canada, much more friendly to gun control than the US, registration is an enormous controversy and not being consistently enforced.
Re your Lyndon Johnson link, what it showed is that Johnson got most of the gun control he asked for – except for the registration and licensing.
Actually, there are many states with conceal carry licensing. But the rub is that, as you may recall I’ve previously documented, the license exams are so easy to pass as to be meaningless. Standards such as for car licensing simply have no chance of passage in the current atmosphere.
I’m curious on this one. Many states now require elderly drivers to take an eye test to maintain their license. Given the importance of good vision when it comes to shooting an assailant (or a deer) rather than an innocent bystander, do you agree that there needs to be similar vision requirements for drivers and gun owners? Licensing is only worthwhile it is actually stops people who can’t be trusted with a gun from having one.
And sure, some restrictions on guns aren’t silly, either. But they don’t seem to reduce crime much.
Sure we could. The Second Amendment has never kept the government from clamping down on specific weapons.
“Gun control” in America is a joke incapable of accomplishing much at all. And the important point of gun control isn’t to reduce the level of violence in our society, it’s to make it less lethal. And not just crime; gun ownership significantly increases death by accident and suicide.
For one, get rid of the gun lobby, which constantly pushes the idea that violence is an admirable solutions to problems.