I agree with you that the proposed laws are stupid if they do that. I didn’t make or support any of those propositions.
but you just said the “assault weapons ban” was a “step in the right direction.”
No, I clarified that an assault weapons ban never happened. I said that instead, the sale of some weapons became illegal for a ten year period.
That ten year period was a step in the right direction from my point of view. Even if the reason for the ban on the sale of some of those guns was based on irrelevant reasons.
Yes. I had/have “Moderator Note” at the top of the post.
The titles are sometimes not visible to me when viewing on a mobile device, but I see it on my desktop.
OK, what was the effect of the removal of the ban? Sure seems like we’re having a lot more assault weapons massacres since 2005 than we had during the 1994-2004 period when assault weapons sales were banned.
Missed the edit window.
From lurkinghorror’s cite:
Politifact says this fails to take into account population growth, but the population didn’t grow that much. It quotes experts who caution against attributing this increase entirely to the repeal of the ban, which is fine. But the fact remains that once the lid came off in 2004, the frequency and severity of mass shootings both increased substantially.
Hell, just in the past couple of years, we’ve gone from “don’t publicize the name of the shooter, that’s one of the motivating factors” to there being so many of these shootings that a mass shooter is lucky to get 15 minutes of fame out of it.
I would extend that to law abiding citizens that own guns, members of the NRA, etc. as well. I don’t know a single gun owner that advocates bullet holes in people.
California ranks 27th in the USA in murder rate, pretty much in the middle. Florida ranks 24th, so there is no significant difference.
If you count only “gun murders” CA ranks the 19th worst.
Ca does have the strictest gun laws in the nation. Florida is about average.
New Hampshire has the very lowest murder rate in the nation, but is ranked 31st in gun laws (with CA being #1) .
So, this post has a pretty spurious comparison. Whatever is driving homicide rates, gun laws in the USA do not seem to be having any effect at all.
Assault Weapons- however you define them- have a extremely small rate of being used in violent crimes. All rifles added together only account for around 4% of murders. Even if you waved a magic wand and removed every single assault weapon in the USA, there would be no significant downtick in homicide rates.
So, if it’s sample bias, where do all the good gunshot victims wind up? Yeah, tow see a lot of broke-down autos, but there’s a lot of perfectly fine ones whizzing by while they load up the cripple.
I’d say more help for the crazy would help, but conservatives are are dead set against that as well. I’m not enthusiastic about gun control but the wingnuts are backing themselves into a corner.
Great, so those have been effectively banned in the USA since 1934. Problem solved! No more gun deaths… oh, err, oops. 
Interesting you mentioned hunting, because if you include hunting as a “good gun use,” then the ratio would be more like 100:1 in favor of good use.
Actually they don’t.
…and as predicted it devolves into a battle over exact terminology and knowing every last legal or regulatory provision…
Well, she works in San Francisco , which had 57 murders last year. In 2018 they had about 20 shooting murders.
There are five ERs in SF. 4 per ER.
Assuming she worked 50% of the time in one, then the answer is two per year.
Now here she claims to do “Melinek said she conducts, on average, one autopsy a week involving a gunshot wound victim”.
However, like I showed, there were only 20 gun murders, and she is not the County’s Chief Medical examiner.
So, I have no idea how is is doing 50 autopsy a year on gun murders when there were only 20 such and she certainly isnt the only Doctor doing such.
The problem of gun violence is improving rapidly, murders are down 50% from there high, shootings are down, even suicides are down from there high of 25 years ago.
If someone did try to shoot up the NRA’s headquarters I imagine they would die a lot quicker than any myth.
It’s weird how we let the gun fetishists control the debate on guns. I do take comfort in the fact that their grip is loosening though. To be honest it’s going to take angry old white guys dying off.
See, I am not a member of the NRA. I only own a .22 rimfire rifle, given to me by my Dad on Christmas when I was a kid, and my service revolver, from when I was a State security guard during college. I haven’t fired either in decades. I did work at a sporting goods store for a while, they sold guns, but I mostly did fishing tackle.
But I am a small L libertarian, and I dont like laws that do nothing. Gun laws in the USA have never had a significant effect on violent crime.
And then, when a “gun grabber” talks about banning “assault weapons”, I do expect them to know a reasonable amount about what they want to ban, and why. Here on this board I have read that assault weapons are large caliber (not true, in fact the AR15 is only .22 caliber), very powerful (again, not true) , that all semi-auto weapons are 'assault weapons " (not under any legal definition) and that banning assault weapons would cause a large decrease in “gun deaths” which is simply false (few people would consider less than 4%= “large”). So yeah, I would like you to know a few facts before recommending to imprison perhaps some 30 Million US citizens.
Don’t worry, yes I know there are a few "gun fetishists " around, altho I prefer “gun nuts”. I haven’t seen many on the SDMB, however.
You’re leaving out suicides and accidental deaths from guns.
No stats for those. But even if that doubles the number, her figures are impossible. Even triple, that makes her doing six such examinations a year.