Biden Seeks Assault Weapons Ban and Background Checks
- PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago
0March 23, 2021
WASHINGTON — Faced with the second mass shooting in a week, President Biden and Democrats on Capitol Hill called on Tuesday for fast action to enact stricter gun laws, a plea that was immediately met with a blockade of opposition by Republicans.
In brief, somber remarks from the White House, Mr. Biden called on the Senate to pass a ban on assault weapons and to close background check loopholes, saying that doing so would be “common sense steps that will save lives in the future.”
His demand for action was the latest in what has become a doleful ritual in Washington: making a renewed call for gun safety legislation after a deadly shooting, this one at a Colorado grocery store where 10 people, including a police officer, were killed on Monday.
“This is not and should not be a partisan issue — it is an American issue,” Mr. Biden said. “We have to act. "
But while polling regularly shows broad support for tighter gun laws and specific policies like a ban on assault weapons, Republicans in Congress remained all but immovable on the issue, repeating longstanding arguments on Tuesday that gun violence should be addressed through steps like more policing rather than limiting gun rights.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/23/us/p … google1tap
************
Why are Republicans so stubbornly opposed to these limited measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?
Is it principle or money from the NRA or something else?Because it isn't as much of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill as keeping guns out of the hands of everyone.
Because Democrats repeatedly, always, offer plans to violate our constitution while doing nothing at all to save lives. They steadfastly refuse to address the problem of violence in America, insisting that if they can just get the guns out of society the violence will stop. An obvious fallacy, but that's all that is ever offered.
Did you know there are more people murdered by bludgeoning than by all long guns, including those dreadful "assault weapons", combined? So we put our efforts into one tiny portion of the violence, hoping against hope that if we confiscate those guns that criminals and murderers won't murder any more.
Ted Cruz said it well: "Every time there's a shooting, we play this ridiculous theater where this committee gets together and proposes a bunch of laws that would do nothing to stop these murders," https://news.yahoo.com/ted-cruz-says-wo … 52971.htmlSo, what do you use your assault weapons for?
Rather stupid question as you have zero reason to assume I have any at all.
Plus, you failed to indicate which of the dozen or so legal definitions of "assault weapon" you assumed I owned.So, you don't need any of the dozen or so assault weapons that fit the legal definition? Good to know.
Since you are so knowledgeble, why would a person want to own one? Setting aside collectors who don't need ammo and just want to hang it on a wall or something.No, not a dozen guns that fit the definition: a dozen or more different definitions, not one of which has anything to do with military "assaults". Or anything else military, for that matter.
I think you know the answer, but:
Hunting for food
Sport shooting
target shooting
Collections (as you point out)
Self defense
Now. What difference does it make what the "need" is? The constitution does not address "need" or require any, so why is it even a consideration?The constitution doesn't address limits on free speech, either, yet there are some.
And, if limits were placed on ownership of assault weapons, they would be defined in the legislation. We do not yet know how they would be defined for the purposes of new restrictions. Unless, of course, they simply renewed the ban that expired.
Oh, were people still able to engage in your list of uses during the previous ban on assault weapins?
Hunting for food
Sport shooting
target shooting
Collections (as you point out)
Self defense
I think so. Hmmm, it seems the previous ban was constitutional and did not prevent using guns for any of the above uses. Imagine that!They don't need guns at all to hunt for food; bows and traps will suffice.
Same for target practice.
Same for self defense.
Is that where you're headed? No guns because food is available at grocery stores and if you don't like that you can hunt with a knife or trap? As a bonus you can take martial arts classes to protect yourself from the shooter 50 yards away.Sounds graat! But,no, my point was that it is simple reality that the government can and has banned certain guns and would not and did not infringe upon your rights.
Setting politics aside, and using reading skills and reason alone, can you point to anything in the Constitution that applies any limits to the weapons citizens might own? The only wording I can think of is "shall not be infringed", which is no limit at all.
Given that, the politics of the day certainly do infringe upon the rights given in the Constitution. Personally I think it is right to do so...but that is limited far, far below what Democrats wish to do."Given that, the politics of the day certainly do infringe upon the rights given in the Constitution. Personally I think it is right to do so...but that is limited far, far below what Democrats wish to do."
But according to this some limits are to be imposed, that line that you say have been well exceeded by Democrats. I keep getting the impression that you gun slinging, right wing types would resist any limits at all.Pretty sure the courts have noted that free speech also has limitations. It's not without precedent to set limitations on Constitutional rights for the good of the public interest.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/First- … expressionProbably because they resist any and all (or very close to any and all) additional restrictions by Democrats. But what you are forgetting to consider is that there are already more restrictions than most consider reasonable and the Dem's just keep piling them on in a forlorn hope that they can stop American violence by taking away the guns.
Or at least that's what they claim; it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that they actually believe their own claims that all will be rosy and lives saved if we just remove the preferred tool of killers from those that won't kill anyway. That the killers will quietly slink away, becoming model citizens without those evil gun things whispering in their ear to do violence.
I don't have a problem with that position. We are then just disagreeing on where the limits should be.
Of course we are. As far as I can tell, liberals and Democrats have no limits when setting gun controls, and many of them are honest enough to admit they would disarm the public today if they could.
And, perhaps because of that unending attack on gun ownership, the other side of the nation fights bitterly against even the most innocuous requirement as they fully understand that it is intended only as another chip in the battle to disarm - that the battle will never end as long as private citizens own firearms of any kind.
As always, the quiet voices of moderation, on both sides, are shouted down and not heard; all that the mobs from both sides hear are the outcries and screams from the ends of the political spectrum.'As always, the quiet voices of moderation, on both sides, are shouted down and not heard; all that the mobs from both sides hear are the outcries and screams from the ends of the political spectrum.'
Which you perfectly displayed by claiming 'liberals and Democrats have no limits when setting gun controls...' You do the exact thing you then complain about two paragraphs later.As a far left liberal, I'll pose the same question to you as I did PP: assuming that no controls will ever seriously lessen the murder rate in America, where do you feel the gun control advocates will stop with additional controls and limitations? At what point will they be satisfied they have done all they can and stop further limiting ownership?
"Of course we are. As far as I can tell, liberals and Democrats have no limits when setting gun controls, and many of them are honest enough to admit they would disarm the public today if they could."
LOL, you just have to push it, don't you? I don't know a single liberal who doesn't own guns, except an elderly friend whose husband passed and she gave his guns to her son. Also, I don't know a single liberal who doesn't support the second amendment. When you say stuff like that, you sound like a right-wing nutjob. This is why productive discussions about realistic gun control are almost impossible. You are starting from a stubbornly erroneous position."This is why productive discussions about realistic gun control are almost impossible."
That one little word, that has become so popular with gun control advocates, is the nexus of the problem. Liberals, as far as I and others can see, find anything that limits gun ownership to be "realistic". "Common sense" gun control is another term used the same way - anything that controls access to guns, useful or not, is "reasonable", "realistic" and "common sense".
Unfortunately, when we look at the results, either from the point of reason or from historical results, the vast majority of those "realistic" gun controls are a total failure, for none of them have produced, or can reasonably be expected to produce, the results desired. None reduces the death toll - they serve only to limit gun ownership.
And that, in the minds of second amendment advocates, takes it out of the "realistic" field into something else entirely. The problem, of course, is that those wishing to remove guns from the public assume that doing so will remove guns from criminals (an obvious falsehood) and that without the preferred tool killers will no longer kill - another obvious falsehood, particularly given that other tools are more commonly used than the guns being attacked as causing the death toll.
As proof of this, one has only to look at the enormous effort to ban so-called "assault weapons" (including the scary but false name given those guns) when they are used in such a tiny portion of murders. Far better would be to address why Americans are so prone to such extreme violence, but that would mean real work and real effort be put into changing our culture. Much easier to pretend that without that one tool, killers will not kill.
You want to talk about a "stubbornly erroneous position"? There is your stubbornly erroneous position: the idea that removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens will prevent murderers from killing people.That's what I said; everything is reasonable to the liberal wanting to limit gun ownership. You appear to agree, yes?
For instance - is it "realistic" to require a mental exam, even knowing that we cannot predict murderers from such an exam, that the exam is worthless a month after being conducted and that other tools are readily available for murdering someone? Yet it is a serious proposal from libs.
Is it "realistic" to think that removing "assault weapons" from the hands of citizens will seriously reduce the death toll...when far more people are murdered with blunt objects (bats, hammers, etc.) than all rifles combined, which includes the small subset of "assault weapons"?
Is it "realistic" to think that requiring registration of guns will lower the death toll...when they are only good for finding a killer after he kills?
Is it "realistic" to think that a substantial reduction of the death toll will happen if we require massive, expensive safes to place the guns in...but precious few murders are committed with guns stolen from the home and such storage very effectively eliminates any use for self defense in the home?
Just some examples of those "common sense" laws proposed that will do nothing at all to lower the death toll.
Perhaps it really is "impossible" to reduce American penchant for violence, but it appears to be even more "impossible" to convince control advocates that taking weapons from law abiding citizens will not prevent criminals and the insane from killing people.No, I do not agree, and the rest is just more hooey that I will not engage with. You continue to create a fantasy "liberal position" to argue against to make it easy on yourself.
Not going to waste my time.He tried to Dan you too! - by claiming you agree with his stance when what you really said was that you no longer wish to engage with him because he lives in his own alternate reality.
Yep, it's a true waste of energy to talk to someone who creates fantasy positions you don't hold so he can argue against them. I think there's a term for that but I never can remember it.
Could be the False Consensus Effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effectDo you think it's a fantasy that conservatives view liberals as never stopping their gun controls positions? What is the fantasy you refer to?
Is this another "lawenforcement website, run by Russian Oligarchs, is the source of that lie?
OK - would you care to discuss how gun registration will save lives, or how a mental exam before buying a gun will do the same? Should we discuss how murders will be prevented by requiring a doubling of the cost of a gun by purchasing a massive safe for storage at home?
Or is an actual evaluation of gun control proposals a "waste of your time"?
Would you care to give your own concept, as a liberal, of where gun controls should never go, or where the end of controls should be? You can start with the assumption that no control (outside of confiscation) will seriously affect the murder rate and take it from there. Given that assumption, where would you say that gun control advocates will end the crusade to limit ownership?
You know, I get really tired of people with little or no knowledge of weapons demanding I justify my need for an assault weapon.
As far as I'm concerned there is only one reason.
I am a responsible gun owner with no criminal history. If I want to purchase any gun, I should be able to purchase it. Why? I'm responsible and not a criminal.
Rather than realize gun laws do nothing to stop gun violence, the left has to attack law-abiding citizens. Gun laws don't stop criminals from getting assault weapons, don't stop responsible citizens from having them either.
So perfectly put... But it makes such nice mussie feed for liberals, and Joe's handlers see such a great opportunity to flap Joe's mouth. You must agree with the fact it'ss great politicking.
So,what do you use your assault weapons for?
I can only think that some prefer this type of gun to protect their homes and families. In my opinion, a handgun should surface to protect one home and family as well as self if needed. I have a handgun and feel very secure having it in my home. Never had to use it, but would if I needed to. I feel gun laws could certainly be updated, and more applied safeguards to purchasing a gun.
It is great politicking...until you dig even a tiny way under the surface, whereupon it means "We want your guns because we don't want you to be armed". Certainly it has nothing to do with Biden repeating, over and over, that it will save lives, for the totality of history says different.
Agree... Just another control. I mean are they afraid that the guns could be turned on them?
The reports I read indicate that the Boulder shooter (the beginning of the latest fiasco of law making) got a background check 6 days before, that he passed the "take the guns if he is weird" law even though he was weird, carried an "assault rifle" in a place where it was banned, carried weapons into a store where open carry was banned and so on.
Which law, designed to limit mass shootings by those scary looking "assault weapons" prevented the massacre? Which ones failed miserably, as they always will?
The murder by bludgeoning claim was made by the website Lawenforcement Today. The website is run by one of the two captains of a 13-person police force that guards billionaires on a private island in Florida, including two Russian oligarchs.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/law-enforcement-today/Really? The website is run by Russian oligarchs? That's shocking!
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … 9-2013.xls
rifles plus shotguns = 593 for 2013, blunt weapons (bludgeons) = 428 and hands, feet, etc. = 687. According to the FBI website, which is apparently run by Russian oligarchs.Wow, a legitimate data source. I'm impressed, even if it is eight years old.
Now if we can just get you to have a little reading comprehension to understand what I wrote about who runs the Law Enforcement today website.
I'll mail you a Dr. Seuss book, you righties love reading that racist crap.Why would anyone care who runs the website you decided produced the information given, but that actually came from the FBI?
That was actually the point, in case you missed it - your unsupported claim was proven false and there is no reason to think that the rest of your unsupported claims have any more truth to them than that one did. The one, for instance, claiming that Russian oligarchs run the lawenforcement site.Why would anyone care? Because even people in the police can have destructive leanings, as noted by the four police personnel that face charges for their part in the January 6 insurrection.
My unsupported claim? That a website disseminated the information across social media? That claim is supported by their recent post that then just happens to show up at this site a few days later by you. Timing would seem to support the claim, actually.
'The one, for instance, claiming that Russian oligarchs run the lawenforcement site.'
Except if you could read, you would see that I never made such a claim. I simply noted that two Russian Oligarchs live on the island where the site creator polices.
You invented the part about me claiming it's run by Russians Oligarchs by twisting words to create a narrative you could be outraged about. It's what I now refer to as a Danism. You jumbling words around to create a narrative never said by the original person for the sake of argument about things you want to argue about.
It's why people here literally hate talking to you because it ALWAYS leads to that place where you fabricate things they never said.
Oh lordy PrettyPanther, you have opened another gun-control thread. You better suit up. ;-)
Here are some of the foundation steps we have to reach beyond we can get past the rhetoric.
First, and most importantly, I don't think Conservatives or conservative Republicans, are "opposed to these limited measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill." That is a silly headline statement.
If you do that, then your real question would be what gun-control issues do the Republicans oppose?
The assault-rifle ban may be a fair example. I don't think Republicans would oppose bans on real military assault weapons, like; fully-automatic machine guns, grenade launchers, or bazookas.
Those are real military assault weapons. The "assault" weapons that are being targeted are nothing more than dressed-up versions of older wood-stocked semi-auto hunting rifles.
I think the background check aspects of gun law proposals may have room to be tweaked, and I bet most Republicans would be open to at least working on those issues, such as the Gun Show Loophole thing.
GAI agree - most Republicans would be open to "common sense" efforts to deny guns to criminals or would-be killers. The problem occurs when those "common sense" efforts do nothing to disarm criminals but do institute onerous requirements on the public. A mental exam, for example, that is 100% useless a month after it is performed.
I should clarify that I meant "Republican legislators," not Republicans in general. Most Republicans (citizens) support closing background check loopholes. I'm not sure if most Republicans (citizens) support reinstating the assault weapons ban. I would have to look that up.
On the gun issues, I think the Republican legislators are probably in tune with their constituencies.
Relative to an assault weapon ban, I would not support that idea because I haven't heard a credible definition of that weapon. Consider this; in reality, almost all "assault weapons" are called that primarily due to appearance. Cosmetic adaptations.
The .223 AR-15 doesn't shoot any faster, (one shot per trigger pull), or more powerfully than its .223 Wooden-stocked ranch varmint rifle cousin. But because of appearance one is an assault rifle.
From varmint rifle to dangerous military assault weapon with just a little dress-up.
GAHave you looked at how they were defined in the previous ban?
Yes, I did look at the previous ban's qualifiers.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
GA
I also heard some talk from the media about private sales. The discussion included both liberal and conservative politicians. I think they were bewildered that they had no control over that and couldn't figure out how to regulate background checks when two private individuals were involved or when guns were passed down through family. I kinda giggled when both sides realized that they had no control over this aspect.
I think the "private sales" aspect of gun-control efforts is both the easiest and the toughest to address.
The easiest part would be to just leave private gun sales alone—when those sales are between family, friends, or neighbors. It should be a non-issue.
The toughest part would be where to draw the line between 'those' type of sales and the gun show sales that are mass events masquerading as private sales just because they aren't conducted by licensed businesses.
GA
My opinion is people just want their way and would rather act like children (No I can have it) as opposed to looking at things logically and sensibly. We waned more background checks, etc.
NO.
So now we want to ban them.
Not guns.
Assault rifles (or whatever AR stands for in AR-15.)
Almost every mass shooting, including the recent one about an hour from me, involved an AR.I'm sorry, and don't mean to offend, but you appear to have zero idea of what an "assault rifle" is.
Simply put, it is an ordinary hunting rifle equipped with an added hand grip, folding stock or barrel shroud. None of these have any affect at all on how the gun operates or how deadly it is, but (when coupled with black paint) makes it look like something the military might use. It isn't - it is still just an ordinary rifle any any military would sneer at it - but it looks kind of like it.
And that means that the appearance can be used to scare people into thinking it is a military weapon, not suitable for civilians. While untrue in every particular, this tale is still useful for scaring people...and for convincing them that this fake "assault rifle" should be banned from civilian ownership.
(The AR-15 is the most common rifle in the country, and one of the cheapest, which rather explains why it is the one most commonly used. Coupled with the appearance it might convince an insane person to obtain it over other, more deadly, rifles).
- PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago0
Wilserness, why should I engage in a discussion when you unilaterally decide what assumptions should be made after repeatedly telling me what liberals want and will do?
After ten years, I've grown weary of your dysfunctional tactics. As soon as you deploy them, I know the discussion is just a waste of time.I did not tell you what liberals want to do - that would not only be foolish but a waste of time.
What I told you, and made very clear, is what gun control opponents, in general view as the liberal stance on gun controls. A world of difference, and very much in line with your earlier comment that there is a vast difference in the viewpoints of the two groups. Everything I've said since then was the same: what one group thinks the other is doing, and asking for your opinion of where it is wrong and what should be done about it. I even asked you point blank where YOU think the far left will stop with gun controls when they don't work...to have you reply that it is stupid and not worthy of discussion.
You would be much better off to attempt an understanding of what is being said rather than assume whatever you don't want to hear is foolish and stupid.PRETTYPANTHER WROTE:
I don't have a problem with that position. We are then just disagreeing on where the limits should be.
YOU REPLIED: Of course we are. As far as I can tell, liberals and Democrats have no limits when setting gun controls, and many of them are honest enough to admit they would disarm the public today if they could.
....
This is where I started seeing you telling me what liberals say and do. Now, you're trying to reframe it.
If you truly did not mean what you wrote, then I will read your clarification and see if we can resume in a reasonable manner.Did you see the "As far as I can tell" part? That is indeed the opinion I've generated for myself, but would never tell anyone they must accept the perception for themselves.
It comes from the incessant effort to institute more, and more onerous, gun controls, along with reading the comments from prominent liberal politicians making no bones about want the population disarmed. A distinct minority at this point, but still there.
So that is my opinion of the liberal stance on gun controls; continue indefinitely, with a growing faction wanting disarmament. And it is the perception of a whole lot of conservatives as well.
But it is still a perception only, cannot possibly apply to everyone labeling themselves as liberal, and may not be true for any but the most rabid gun control nuts. Whatever the truth is, though, it is a perception that you, as a liberal, will have to overcome every time you propose or support a new form of gun control. Do you disagree with that - that the perception is there and must be overcome?I realize that is your opinion. In my opinion, if that is your mindset, there is not much point in engaging. I would be like me saying I think conservatives and Republicans don't care who can get guns and how many people they kill, they want purely unlimited access to any gun of any type with zero restrictions or accountability.
Now, if I asserted that, would you consider me open to any kind of discussion about regulating guns or who can get them?Well, I asked earlier where you, as a liberal, would stop instituting more gun controls. You didn't answer, which neatly leaves my opinion in place and active. Was that by design, or would you care to put a limit on how far you personally would go in limiting gun ownership?
Would you limit it by age (I was supplying meat for my family at 14 years old)?
Would you require a mental exam to purchase a gun? Would you require it be repeated every year?
Would you ban the so-called "assault rifle"? As written they all seem to include the "varmint gun" - a .22 caliber rifle suitable for training children or killing rodents...
Would you ban any rifles shooting a heavier, faster bullet (meaning more deadly) than the AR-15?
Would you ban shotguns? (More people murdered with shotguns than all long rifles, including assault rifles, combined).
Would you require gun purchasers to pay double or more for their gun as a means of discouraging ownership? Might be hidden in fees for a background check, mental exam, registration, etc. but still discourages ownership.
Would you ban any gun capable of killing a large animal?
Would you ban any form of carrying a loaded firearm?
Would you increase the number of "gun free zones"?
Where is your breaking point, as a liberal, when nothing else works? You complain when I say there doesn't seem to BE one - what kinds of things would you back off from?
People on the left fail to realize gun legislation does NOT work. When you take guns out of the hand of responsible gun owners, crimes increase.
How about Chicago?
“Chicago is known for their tough control laws but they continue to see a dramatic amount of homicides with using guns. Here’s the current gun control legislation in Chicago: State permit required, owner permit required, no firearm registration, license to carry required, no open carry, vehicle carry, no assault ban, no magazine restriction, NFA weapons restricted, background checks for private sales, red flag laws, and waiting period laws.
Despite all of that gun control, Chicago still seems to encounter plenty of gun violence. In 2015 to 2016 the gun homicide rate MULTIPLIED by 61 percent according to NPR.”
https://grahamallen.com/2021/03/does-it … -violence/
Then there is the state of Maryland
“In Maryland, another state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Baltimore had 343 murders last year and has highest per capita murder rate in the nation. The city was also just named the most dangerous city in America by USA Today.”
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/some … ous-cities
These are only two examples. If I had the time and desire, I could provide many more examples. So, liberals, your gun legislation doesn't work. Quit punishing law-abiding citizens in your delusional belief that criminals will pay attention to the laws you pass.I just saw a report where Hunter Biden lied on a background check form in order to obtain a hand gun back in, I believe, 2018. Hasn't been prosecuted yet.
I would say enforcing laws, instead of making new ones, might be a good start.I'm going to disagree with the assault weapon ban having no effects. Research states just the opposite.
-A number of cities and jurisdictions reported declines in the number of assault weapons recovered from crime scenes. These declines ranged from 17 percent to 72 percent during the ten year assault weapon ban from 1994-2004.
-Researchers analyzing public mass shootings from 1982 through 2011 found that both state and federal bans on assault weapons resulted in decreased rates of mass shooting fatalities. The federal ban also indicated a decrease in rates of mass shooting injuries.
-A 2019 study examined mass shootings from 1981 through 2017 and analyzed the risk of fatalities in those incidents. The study found that during the 10-year period the federal ban was in effect, mass shooting fatalities were 70 percent less likely to occur than either before or after the ban.
-Analysis found that the decade during which the federal assault weapons ban was in effect was linked to a 25 percent decrease in mass shootings and a 40 percent decrease in mass shooting deaths. Additionally, the research found that in the decade after the ban expired, mass shooting deaths increased by 347 percent.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues … st-banned/As always, Google is ready to hand us contradicting information sources.
A Factcheck.org article addressing studies of the 1994 ban found no solid proof that the ban accomplished what it was intended to do.
"Koper, 2004: Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs [Assault Weapons], any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.
However, the grandfathering provision of the AW-LCM ban guaranteed that the effects of this law would occur only gradually over time. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers. It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence."
"Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result, the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period."
Sooooo . . .if banning one type of gun didn't get the job done, then it seems obvious that their replacement must also be banned. On the road to a gun-control advocate's dream—only single-shot bolt-action guns allowed. Except for government agencies of course.
GANone of those stats contradict the ones I listed pertaining strictly to mass shootings.
As with the post Dan and Mike followed with, none of you seem to want to acknowledge that the ban actually did help reduce mass shootings and mass shooting deaths. You all seem to revert back to general crime stats.Could the issue be larger than mass shootings? Too many illegally obtained weapons are used in the commission of crimes. When 90 percent of the crimes committed with guns are from illegal guns, we have a big problem. One that can't be resolved with gun legislation. Criminals don't follow the laws. I wonder if the ban actually kept criminals from obtaining "assault" style weapons. I doubt it.
I think the two issues are a bit separate, although both of importance.
Unlike general crime where guns are obtained illegally - for mass shootings, only 13% were illegally obtained.
It sounds like you recognize a separate problem in the amount of illegally obtained guns getting into the hands of criminals. I suppose your solution isn't to find ways to keep them out, but to arm every human and have a shootout.Not that requiring every citizen to be armed is any kind of solution, but I hear claims that there has not been a mass shooting in anything but gun free zones. An exception could be made for the shooter from the motel window, I suppose, but it IS a valid comment even if exaggerated.
But isn't banning guns, whether only assault rifles or all guns, the same as prohibiting alcohol because some people drive drunk? Isn't a better solution to find and address why some people (insane, IMO, in the case of mass shooters) want to kill and do so without regard to who they are killing?
That is correct; it is the total death toll, from all forms of violence, that counts.
One really major problem is the assumption that taking the preferred tool will end, or reduce, the violence. This is patently false, for a killer wanting to kill will do so, and removing his/her preference of the tool used will not change that. Again, this was seen in Australia with their gun confiscation; after it was done the mass murder rate actually rose slightly...but with matches and poison rather than an assault rifle. If one only looks at mass murders via a semi-automatic rifle it was successful...but the death toll continued to rise, making that conclusion wrong on the face of it.
So looking at one small area of the violence (mass murders via an assault rifle) is useless in determining if lives were saved. Even looking at only lives lost due to mass murders is almost as bad, as there aren't enough events to construct a valid conclusion. Even a single event can swing the stats enormously, making any such conclusion invalid.
I have commented before that if we somehow took all the guns away, overnight, we could conclude that it was 100% successful as there would be no corpses with bullet holes in them...but neither corpses nor survivors care if a corpse has a bullet hole. Only that it no longer has life.In the 10-year period prior to Australia's gun law change, there were 11 mass murder incidents with a body count of 63.
In the 10 years after, there were also 11. Of the 11 after, only once was the body count above 5 people, and that was a case of arson. The total body count for those ten years was 45.
I'd say a nearly 30% drop in the amount of deaths qualifies as significant enough to justify a success.
The body count in the spree shooting in 1996 - 35.In the 20 years prior to the gun buyback there were 18 "massacres" (Aussie term for mass murder) with 96 people killed.
In the 20 years after the buyback there were 22 massacres with 106 people killed.
Three incidents in the later years killed 10 or more people; none in the prior 20 years did.
Clear evidence that the ban was not only ineffective, but did the opposite of what was desired, right?
But it isn't, because the numbers of both events and killed are too low to make a conclusion. This is an excellent example of why I said that; your example of 10 years missed 3 very important years in the time following the ban, and those 3 events made all the difference, with a total of 36 dead in just those 3 massacres. Small numbers cannot be used to make a statistical call such as you're trying to make here.
But there IS sufficient numbers to make the call when looking at the homicide numbers (or rate, which is superior because it accounts for increasing population numbers). And that call, in Australia, is that the ban did nothing at all to reduce the death toll.
Would you be interested to know that there is NO correlation between the gun ownership rate and the homicide rate anywhere in the world? It's true; more guns does NOT equate, or even correlate, with more murders.Now, including the 1996 spree, that makes 131 deaths.
Doing a deeper dive into the arson incidents, it's a stretch to say there was intent to kill in both the Churchill fires or the Quaker fires. Sokulak was borderline mentally disabled who liked fire and set his fire in a field. Dean was a drug addict trying to cover up a theft of painkillers and set his fire to conceal evidence. The only arson fire with intent to kill was the hostel fire where 15 perished.And we can nitpick at each others choices of what period to use data from, searching for the best period to prove our point...our we can accept that a statistical analysis of it cannot be done because there is insufficient data points to consider.
Valeant, the entire point of that post of 20 years was to indicate exactly that; that because of the small number of data points no real conclusion is possible.
On the other hand, using the thousands of murders each year rather than a couple of mass murders does produce a valid conclusion. So which is better indicative of the real world? The one "proving" what we want to be true or the one giving a valid analysis of reality, sufficient to predict the future from?Yes, we can nitpick the data, and we should.
The point being that there has only been one incident of mass killing in Australia that was over 10 people since the ban was put in place in 1996 - the hostel fire.
In the United States - there have been 20 shootings that reached that threshold. And at least 15 shootings where at least 20 people were shot during the event.
June 23, 2,000 Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire. Killed 15 backpackers.
Feb. 7, 2009 Churchill fire. Killed 10 people.
Nov 18, 2011 Nursing home fire. Killed 11 people.
On the other hand, going back to 1629, I find many examples of massacre's of indigenous people, which I personally put in a different category than a madman going on a killing spree. Simply put, they have nothing in common with our modern problem of mass murders in civilized countries. Beyond that, we see:
Feb. 1, 1942 Boulder & Kalgoorlie bombings, killing 14 people.
Sept. 6, 1971 Hope Forest massacre, 10 family members were shot to death.
March 8, 1973 Hope Forest massacre, arson killing 15 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … %20rows%20
So we have to back 50 years prior to the gun ban to find 3 mass murders in Australia killing more than 10 people - the same number as 20 years after. Once more, taking the guns worsened the problem...until, at least, we also note that all but one of those big mass murders were by arson.
But I DO like your meme. The only question is where the so called "assault rifle" available to civilians fits into the picture. You have to know it is NOT a "weapon of war" and has never been used by the military - why the meme, then? Are you complaining about the tiny number of true "weapons of war" - actual fully automatic "assault rifles - owned by Americans (none of which have ever been used in a mass murder)?I showed where the nursing home and Churchill fires did not have the intent to kill. They were not intended to murder anyone.
The taking of guns did not worsen the problem. Most of the gun killings since the passage were among families and the body count is significantly less than prior to passage of the law. None reached double digits with guns and I've shown 21 of your 36 arson deaths were attributed to other crimes.
As for your final paragraph, it's clear you believe no guns should ever be banned. I disagree. I think there should be limits as the second amendment was written when men used muskets.
You're right - none after (as opposed to the single one before) used a gun to kill at least 10 people. I doubt, however, that the charred corpses cared whether they had a bullet hole in them or not, and the number of people DID rise. No, you did not "show" that the murders by arson were not meant to happen; simply making the claim shows you want it to be true, not that it is.
Now, don't drop back into the fallacy of deciding what I believe again. Your meme is an outright lie by Crow as he attempted to convince the listener that a falsehood was actually true (that the "assault rifle" used the by the military is the same one used by civilians). And if you posted it with that same thing in mind it makes you no different than Crow.
I take exception to people that make such bald faced lies on public platforms.
Have you considered that the second amendment did not limit ownership of any weapon? Including cannons equipped with chain shot (wonderful for decimating a crowd) and exploding cannon balls. Weapons far better suited to mass murders than a semi-automatic rifle firing small, slow speed bullets.I find you to be a bald faced liar as well. Everyone sees how you always twist words to mean something not remotely in the close to what was actually intended. I tried to have a decent conversation with you on this topic, but you always devolve into either insults or pure lies. Avoid me on here, for I just plan to mock you for the idiocy you spew.
Well, I tried to have an actual conversation, but as usual, anyone disagreeing with your opinions is spouting idiocy.
But that's all right - you already mock as you figure anything you don't want to hear is idiocy and the best way to combat it is with derision rather than fact. As in it takes proof that Brendan Sokaluk didn't want to kill (but was convicted of arson causing death) or that cannon balls make better weapons for mass murder than an ordinary deer rifle.
Of even that the AR-15 available to the public isn't used by the army, for that matter.
So mock away; if nothing else it shows you in a far worse light than the one you mock.Actually, I laid out the facts from their trials - you just chose not to want to listen to them because to a righty like you, court decisions don't mean anything when you have an orange cult leader to tell you what's real and what's fake.
And there you go again spewing your lies - Sokaluk was not charged with murder.Sokaluk was convicted of arson causing death. Close enough for me. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-27/ … 29/3976564
You can split legal hairs forever, but I'll take common sense every time, and 17 years, 9 months for arson causing death is murder in my book. Just as a simple (but black) semi-automatic rifle firing small bullets is not a "weapon of war" and used by the military.Your 'common sense' fabricated an intent that did not exist and made a claim that was simply not true.
Your point that the weaponry of mass shooters is not as lethal as those in the military is accurate.
That does not invalidate what was stated in the meme, that many believe that weaponry capable of waging war - as it was actually stated - does not belong in communities.He may have intended death, he may not have. Certainly your unsupported claim that he did not carries no water - you seem to have a real problem with expecting your opinions to be taken as fact. But MY opinion is that he intended to start a fire; he started a fire and people died as a result. He murdered them. And whether the legal system of Australia requires intent or not, my opinion is that he murdered them.
' "Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder
"weaponry capable of waging war" That would include everything from nuclear weapons to thrown rocks. Do you really think Crow meant to include rocks in his "weapons of war"? (Hint: the world "capable" is not in the meme. That term comes from you, not the meme.)
No, he intended that the term "assault rifle", as defined by various state legislators and is the weapon Biden seeks to ban, is the same one used by the military. An outright, bald faced lie, and all your weaseling doesn't change that.Murder requires premeditation. We went over this in the George Floyd case, except you were on the other side of the argument. Your unsupported claim that he planned to kill is what is lacking here. Hence no murder charges.
And there we go into fantasyland again where you make some outlandish reach about someone's intent. I guess you have a low opinion of the rangers if you believe they'd wage a war using only rocks.Did you read my quote? Did you check the link? According to Cornell law dept common law definition of "murder" does NOT include premeditation or intent.
But I'll throw something else at you: in the one jury I sat on we saw one juror that refused to vote "guilty" on an obvious car theft charge...because she couldn't read the mind of the accused and know that he did not intend to return the car. Intent can only be determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, by reading the mind of the defendant. At least to her.
In addition, I made no claim as to the intent of the arsonist; YOU are the one claiming to know his state of mind. I only said you provided no proof of lack of intent, never that there was none.
No, you don't get to claim I said rangers would wage war using only rocks (although I have no doubt they would if it was necessary and that's all they had). YOU made the claim that the meme referred to "weaponry capable of waging war", not I, and that would include throwing rocks.
Either stand behind your own words or accept that you didn't mean what you said.Why would I read your link to how America defines murder when we are talking about a case in Australia?
I have read the Australia definition of murder and there are cases without premeditation - which is likely why the nursing home fire qualified. But, again, no murder charges in the other case.
Again, outlandish claim with the rocks not based in reality, so I responded in kind with my own outlandish claim. If you are going to put words out there so dimwitted, they deserve the mocking that you got. I definitely stand behind mocking such stupid statements."Why would I read your link to how America defines murder when we are talking about a case in Australia?"
Because we both live in America and are not interested in how other countries define legal matters?
I'm sure you do (stand behind your mocking words). Do you also stand behind your implication that the civilian "assault weapons" are "weapons of war", commonly used by the military? Or did you decide that you never should have posted a meme making that claim as it is completely false to fact?To make a claim that someone was charged with murder in another country, it's that thing called 'common sense' to know how that country defines murder under their laws, not ours.
And there you go again, adding words to fit your narrative. 'Commonly used by the military' was not something that meme claimed at all. If you deny that guns used by mass murderers could be used to wage war, then it is you who is in denial.Of course! We should always use foreign definitions when determining the validity of banning guns because they are used to murder people in our country. That's only common sense!
As I said, thrown rocks could be used to wage war (and have been in the past). Do you deny that? If not, then shouldn't we ban rocks, too, as they can be used to wage war?
Will you now claim that the meme did not claim that the common "assault rifle" is used by the military?We were discussing your claim of murder. We should use foreign definitions when we're referencing how another country apply their laws, especially when you've raised the point about that country and their data. You cannot even concede that you agree with that. It's why speaking with you is a waste of time.
Do you fly? Do you try and bring your box cutter on board with you? Certainly you have accepted that restriction because of the loss of human life it could possibly lead to. Is it a reach to think you wouldn't accept similar restrictions to rocks if they were being used to end life on a massive scale?
I think you certainly interpreted the meme in the way you stated - even though the interpretation was not actually stated as you claimed. I saw the point that certain weapons that could be used to wage wars don't belong in communities. Just as the meme stated. No amount of arguing, just like you trying to justify not being wrong about the murder charges, will change your mind about your own interpretation. So it's pointless to go on with further discussion with you about it.Your "interpretation" could have been valid if the meme had mentioned "weapons that could be used to wage war" (although the thrown rocks come into play then). But it didn't; it clearly said that the author didn't take his (military) assault rifle hunting and didn't take his deer rifle to war in Afghanistan. A very clear implication that the deer gun labeled an "assault rifle" is a military weapon. He went on to say that "weapons of war" do not belong in communities - well, they aren't there unless he is implying that the common semi-automatic rifle used to hunt deer is a "weapon of war". Which he is, and which is a outright lie.
There is another possibility, however - do you think he referred to any gun that is painted black as belonging on the battlefield and not the community? I don't, do you?
You say you read it as that certain weapons the could be used to wage wars should not be in the hands of civilians, but presumably you don't mean to include the bolt or lever action hunting rifles...although they were absolutely used to wage war until the modern fully automatic rifles came alone.
Or did you? Did you mean to include to include a bolt action 30-06 rifle as a "weapon of war" and would thus ban that one, too? Or just the semi-automatic gun will the smaller, less energetic and less deadly bullet that has been falsely labeled an "assault rifle"?
There are many facets to consider when making conclusions about the efficacy of the assault ban.
First is that the ban was not a ban on assault guns; it was a ban on the manufacture of assault guns. This means that any real effect will only be seen years after the ban as millions of the weapons are still in circulation.
Second is that, as always, a correlation in time does NOT mean a causal effect. This is doubly so when the time correlation is so vague as it is here (how long after a manufacture ban should we see a decrease in deaths) as we are always trying to reduce the death toll from violence. Was it something else that caused the change, or the ban?
Third, what is it that we want? What is the goal? If it's to see fewer assault rifles left behind at crime scenes (as your link gives as proof the ban worked) it is possible that we were successful. If, however, the goal is to reduce the death toll from violent murders, perhaps we need another look at what actually happened in the country.
During the period from about 1991 to about 2000 we saw a steep drop in the homicide rate in this country. It started well before the assault gun ban, so giving credit to the ban seems questionable although the end point in 2000, and the following stable period, is more reasonable.
The manufacturing ban lasted just 10 years, so we should see a return to the violence after that period if the ban was causal to the drop in the homicide rate. That didn't happen, though - the homicide rate fell to about 5.5/100,000 in 1999 (about where we might expect to begin to see some results) and has remained pretty much the same since then, with only a very slow slide.
This is very similar to what Australia saw with their ban, although Australia actually confiscated all the assault weapons in the country rather than just stop making them. And their homicide rate continued the same slow slide it had been on for several years, dropped more rapidly for a few years and then leveled out. That kind of experience does NOT indicate a causal link between the ban and the slide in homicide rates, just a correlation in time between the two. The same with our ban: there is no indication that one caused the other, only that one followed, very generally and without specific points, the other in time.
Finally, it is difficult to impossible to do a statistical analysis on a handful of events, such as your link attempts to do with "what happened after the ban". That the country saw a very few mass murders cannot be extrapolated, statistically, into any kind of general increase. Only with large numbers, as in the homicide rates, can statistics provide any real value; simply saying that after the manufacturing ban ended (still with millions of assault weapons in the country) we saw more mass murders and therefore the tiny portion of new assault weapons is the cause is fallacious.
Bottom line: Without a significant decrease in murders we cannot say that a ban on producing assault rifles had any effect at all. Indeed, the homicide rate graph shows that it did not, for the ban changed nothing at all there.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/U … icide-rate
A study by the Justice Department showed that 90 percent of weapons used in crimes are obtained illegally.
Here is an article.
The Justice Department recently released a report that once again confirms a long-running statistic regarding firearms and crime. The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that in 2016, some 287,400 individuals were imprisoned for committing crimes while in possession of a firearm and 90% of those firearms were obtained illegally. The report further notes, “More than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift.”
https://patriotpost.us/articles/60599-9 … 2019-01-17
Here is the study from the Department of Justice referenced in the article.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
Here is some statistics concerning stolen weapons.
"Whether stolen from a licensed gun dealer or the collection of an individual gun owner, stolen guns create a significant risk to public safety in American communities. Firearms are both dangerous weapons and durable goods: Once they are stolen, they do not simply disappear. These guns are often illegally trafficked and used in the commission of violent crimes, as demonstrated by the stories above. Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reveal that from 2012 to 2018, nearly 14,800 guns that were recovered by police in connection with a criminal investigation and traced by ATF had been reported stolen or lost from gun stores. Stolen guns also create challenges for law enforcement officers working to solve gun-related crimes, as these guns become untraceable following the theft and cannot be linked to any potential user of the gun."
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues … -analysis/And therefore we may not own a gun because the government will not protect us against theft and we are not allowed to protect ourselves.
The path to disarmament is convoluted and twisted.
Conservatives like to point to addressing the problem of the mentally ill as an excuse to avoid any thought of gun control. Watching a program the other day reminded me that mental illness is everywhere, international, but it is only here that such people can so easily acquire weapons to act out their madness with blood in the street with such magnitude.
Mental illness is a major stumbling block IMO, even given that if we don't allow them weapons they will find a way to kill anyway. Perhaps I'm a little different in that I would apply the label to anyone committing a mass murder of people they never met and don't know.
But the far bigger problem is identifying them and treating them...all under the umbrella of personal freedom. What do we do when they don't want help? How do we identify the insane - test every American every month? Psychologists tell us they cannot reliably test for the willingness to murder, so how do we find those that are ill enough to do just that?
I've yet to hear a reasonable proposal for dealing with the mentally ill, and doubly so when it comes to preventing them from harming others whether with a gun or any other way.
You are mistaken, though, when you say it is only America where they can obtain weapons to act out their madness with such magnitude. 911 could have happened in any country. Australia has a problem with people and matches. McVeigh and his fertilizer bombs could have happened anywhere. We aren't the only nation to have biological weapons sent through the mail - it's a small step to get them into the food chain or water supply. The insane that wishes to kill people will do so whether we eliminate their preferred tool or not, and we see it every day.Always a compelling topic, Wilderness.
Let me evaluate your points here.
1. I was thinking about the mosque massacre in New Zealand two years ago. The point I make is that it is far easier to kill with an AR-15, then with knives and rocks. How many people can one person kill with knives or rocks in an instant? It is a tool designed for one thing and one thing only. I also say that logistics of planning and planting bombs makes such a perpetrator more subject to discovery and arrest. Also, since Oklahoma City, I have read that buying large amounts of the explosives McVeigh used cannot be accomplished now without a great deal surveillance and verification of purpose and use. Every other way to do mayhem is far more involved and difficult than just taking a tommy gun and mowing people down.
2. The problem is that conservatives dislike background checks. Such a check may reveal convictions in a court of law (certain misdemeanors and felonies background)that may preclude someone from possessing a firearm, or have medically certified recommendation from a psychiatry point of view that would recommend that this individual not have access to firearms.
It is hard enough to get definitive proof of mental illness outside of your neighbor believing that you may be odd or eccentric. When we can get that proof, it needs to be applied in a way to help to identify and reduce the risk.
The point is not that things like this cannot happen anywhere, it is simply a matter of degree and frequency which sets the US apart.First and foremost, McVeigh did not buy explosives. He bought fertilizer and diesel fuel, and while fertilizer is scrutinized a little more closely, it isn't difficult to buy large quantities. Or steal it from a farmer. As he showed, too, you can kill a lot more people with a bomb than a gun, whether semi-automatic or not. You can also do it with matches, as is being seen in Australia.
I think few conservatives have a problem with a background check...as long as it is cheap and reasonably quick. When the cost skyrockets it is nothing more than another method of denying gun ownership; something you should be familiar with as the same reasoning is applied to voter ID's.
Psychiatric checks: Psychiatrists have made it plain that they cannot predict whether someone will kill, let alone whether they will kill a year from now. There is also the problem of just who is setting the guidelines and who is doing the test; it would be extremely easy to deny half the population that way.
But yes, when we have the proof of a mental illness (perhaps the person checked themselves into mental care and psychiatrists verified there is a problem with violence as best they could?) then we should be taking steps. But let me ask; how many violent criminals have been released from care...only to do it again? This is not uncommon. It may be a help, but it is no solution.
Well, your statement was that it was too easy to get the weapon (meaning, I assume, that terrible "assault rifle"), not that the events happen too often, and it was that statement I disagreed with. That it happens too often is all too apparent; the US has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. Given that, why aren't we addressing the "why" of it rather than the "how"? We can't fix the "how" for there are far too many methods (you are aware that more people are killed with blunt instruments like baseball bats than all rifles combined, including that awful looking assault rifle?). When we take the guns and something else is used, what them? Remove all fertilizer from the country? Take away all chemicals that can kill (like insecticides or floor polish)? Remove all cutting instruments like kitchen knives? These kinds of questions are why I insist that the answer lies in the culture and in psychology, not in attacking a specific tool. We are a culture glorifying violence and one way it shows up is the homicide rate. IMHO.
I have not forgotten, nor am I likely to forget, sitting outside my grandkids elementary school shortly after Sandy Hook and watching the cars pile up around the mass of children waiting for buses and their ride home. Thinking just how easy it would be to plow through them and not a single thing I could ever do to save my loved ones from a madman in a car. We saw a car used recently in a riot, for that matter, and though he only killed one person it could have been much, much worse for the planning was nonexistent.
I always wonder about this and the thinking behind an assault weapons ban.
Related Discussions
- 94
What is so bad about background checks for gun purchases?
by David 11 years ago
What is so bad about background checks for gun purchases?I have seen many complaints about expanding background checks for gun purchases but I haven't seen reasons attached to the complaints.Society has to go through tests to get things like drivers licenses before they can operate a vehicle, why...
- 51
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by strengthcourageme 9 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
- 46
Do you support a universal ban on military & assault "like" weapons for non mili
by SEXYLADYDEE 11 years ago
Do you support a universal ban on military & assault "like" weapons for non military individuals?Do you believe that only the military needs assault "type" guns? And that "non military" personal use gun purchases should have access to bullet clips with a maximum of...
- 1302
Gun Control
by lesliebyars 11 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
- 28
Gun laws that help stop gun violence
by Jo_Goldsmith11 11 years ago
Are we growing quiet to what happened 112 days ago? The local media believes we have become lost in the current news. Washington seems to be gearing up for another election cycle and trying to bring into focus other things that are not as important.Why do you think the outrage is but a...
- 16
Has the National Rifle Association gained too much power and influence in Americ
by Xenonlit 11 years ago
Has the National Rifle Association gained too much power and influence in America?Is it time to force the NRA to step out of the business of dictating our laws in ways that allow mass shootings? If no one pulls out the gun that they are allowed to carry and defends a crowd, then what good is the...