The ban in 1994 to 2004 showed a drastic drop in mass killings. 6 out of the 10 years there were no mass shootings using AR-15 type of weapons. After the ban there has been a mass shooting every year. There is proof that it helps. Moreover, you are against the types of laws that would indeed decrease the amount of other gun crimes. You denounce the assault ban as doing very little yet you are against laws that actually would impact gun deaths. You would rather do nothing and let people die.
More Horrific mass shootings
- Thread starter SHUSA
- Start date
This has been discussed multiple times here. I don't own one, but I know several people that do. Here are the three that are most common that I hear.
- Gun collectors - People with an interest in military history and collecting.
- Protection - Some people prefer to have on in their home as an option.
- Active gun enthusiasts that will frequent a range on a regular basis. They enjoy owning and shooting various guns for practice, marksmanship and experience.
Another rant. I have stated my opinions that I believe would have a much greater impact on reducing gun crime and deaths (including raising the age that someone can buy certain classes of weapons, actually enforcing red flag laws and preventing someone with diagnosed mental health issue from obtaining a gun. No bail; no pleas for using a gun in the commission of a crime). In combination, that will have a much larger material impact...if you really care about people dying.
Do you feel the same about alcoholism, drugs, and everything else that kills in large numbers every year? People don't NEED these vices. They do more harm than good. Innocent people die from them every year.
Can we see that study, would be very enlightening? Is it broken down by subsections like age of user, etc,?
And I have given you that in NJ we have tough laws on guns. It is mandatory jail time here. Red flag laws do not work well at all. Well intentioned but not effective. I think it is a tool to be used but it doesn't get it done. There is no bail anymore. However, NJ has recently tightened up the presumptive that crimes that are used in the commission of a gun will be detained pre trial.
The no plea thing is something that cannot happen. The system would collapse on itself. Plus it is something that lay people really do not understand. For example, I can plea out an person who commits an armed robbery to 14 yrs where he must serve 85% of that time in jail before being eligible for parole. The range for that crime is 10-20 yrs. You want a trial just for the hell of it? This is not tenable. He can go to trial and probably receive only 15 or 16 yrs max. Also, quality of evidence is always something to consider when evaluating these cases and offering plea offers.
In reality, none of your ideas work or have worked.
Is the rant is what you really don't like the laws that I propose that would actually do some good and reduce gun violence. Is that the rant you are talking about?
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us • Ohio Capital Journal
Researchers have calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the 1994 to 2004 national assault weapons ban was active.
ohiocapitaljournal.com
There is a great graph in this article which is very telling.
It’s not BS; you’ve just made up your mind and don’t want to consider facts.
It’s not BS; you’ve just made up your mind and don’t want to consider facts.
You keep ignoring enforcing the laws. Laws mean nothing if you don’t invest in the policing resources, enforce, and prosecute. Red flag laws mean nothing with no teeth. You like making it easier on the criminal.
You keep arguing for a ban that will never happen, and you accuse me of offering solutions that won’t be implemented either.
Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates
While initiatives against assault weapons may seem like “common sense” to advocates, if one takes the time to examine the data and evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that gun control in this form will do little to reduce gun violence.
fee.org
What are you talking about making it easier on the criminal? You don't know what you are talking about.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Oh man what would our country do if you cant shoot an AR-15 at a gun range, it would be a national travesty.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Wow how ever will I sleep tonight?
The joke is gun owners needing a weapon that causes so much pain to others.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Yes I dont endorse alcoholism or drugs. Im not sure what youre trying to say here.
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us • Ohio Capital Journal
Researchers have calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the 1994 to 2004 national assault weapons ban was active.
There is a great graph in this article which is very telling.
Thanks. Actually supports my theory that the primary driver is the introduction of social media and its associated negative effects, along with the breakdown of the family unit and a move away from purpose by many young people. Shootings/deaths pre-ban were still relatively low before it.
No, the jokes on you because you’re arguing for something that will never happen.
I’m not asking if you endorse them. Should we ban them because people use them improperly leading to massive amounts of casualties in this country annually? I agree people don’t NEED these guns. But they also don’t NEED alcohol, drugs, or even soda which all contribute to deaths. And not just to themselves. Should all be banned because they do contribute to many deaths every year?
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
No we shouldnt ban alcohol, and nobody is saying ban guns. Theyre saying ban the types that make killing mass amounts of people easy, like the AR-15. If you want to require needing to blow into a breathalyzer to start a car to curb drunk driving deaths, be my guest, i would be for it. At least that would serve a purpose versus all the useless crap in new cars today.
If the average schmuck in Nebraska can’t defend his family with one of these, I sure hope servants of the people, for the people, by the people are not protected by these weapons.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
The average schmuck shouldn't have an AR-15 plain and simple.
This is about two different things. Mass shootings are a very small percentage of the overall homicides in the US. The vast amount of homicides are committed with handguns. No kidding. This is not news nor does it take away the validity of the benefits of banning assault weapons. However, as noted that when there was an federal assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. There were years when it did not occur during the federal ban.Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates
While initiatives against assault weapons may seem like “common sense” to advocates, if one takes the time to examine the data and evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that gun control in this form will do little to reduce gun violence.
In addition to the federal assault weapons ban, I have proposed other laws that would then combat gun violence such as gun registration, make it a crime to break the chain of registration and a database of ballistics. That would make it easier for law enforcement to track and prosecute people who commit crimes.
However, what we have in this country and many people on this board that like to complain about gun violence but really don’t want to do anything about it.
And there are also many people on this board that want to ban certain guns and do nothing else, getting on a soapbox bemoaning the loss of life and ignoring the 45,000 gun deaths each year that have nothing to do with an assault rifle.
True. So why do we as a country spend such an inordinate amount of time debating about them? Focus on bigger issues.
Most of the "gun nuts" that I know never fire a round - over decades - outside of a range or at bambi.
And I have given examples of laws that would indeed address gun violence at large. You just don't like those laws. This is a multi prong attack. But assault weapons should be banned.
Because this is simple. Something that Reagan agreed that should be done. Moreover, there are other laws that can be done which I have addressed that would reduce gun violence at large. Those are not mutually exclusive.
As long as it stops there (with an assault weapons ban), I can get on board. But you and I both know it won't stop there because it never does when it comes to the government. Once you give an inch.....
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/police-reform-violent-crime-wave-new-york/670497/
Bill Bratton's solutions on crime. Someone that actually makes sense and points out where the problems lie.
You want to see the effect of bail reform?
And last year, according to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, more than 90 percent of the 60,000 felony arrests resulted in no jail or prison time, or even probation; a scant 3 percent of arrests ended in prison sentences
Bill Bratton's solutions on crime. Someone that actually makes sense and points out where the problems lie.
You want to see the effect of bail reform?
And last year, according to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, more than 90 percent of the 60,000 felony arrests resulted in no jail or prison time, or even probation; a scant 3 percent of arrests ended in prison sentences
And he is only 22 years old and was directing crowds of people while getting into position. Smart and mature.
Very brave move and he no doubt saved countless lives but, 3 innocent people are still dead for no other reason than a bad guy, still has access to a gun
The bad guy's access to a gun is a distraction and a wedge issue. The primary issue is WHY he deteriorated so much that he felt the urge to kill innocent people and how we can fix that.
Similar threads
