Biden Seeks Assault Weapons Ban and Background Checks

Jump to Last Post 1-11 of 11 discussions (104 posts)
  1. profile image0
    PrettyPantherposted 14 months ago

    March 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?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.html

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        So, what do you use your assault weapons for?

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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!

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

              2. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image83
        Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          So,what do you use your assault weapons for?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Agree...  Just another control. I  mean are they afraid that the guns could be turned on them?

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Seem like this criminal that killed many people in a grocery store followed all the laws that were required to buy his gun.

      3. Valeant profile image88
        Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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/

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Valeant profile image88
            Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Valeant profile image88
                Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

    2. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      GA

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        I 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.

      2. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          GA

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Have you looked at how they were defined in the previous ban?

            1. GA Anderson profile image90
              GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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

      3. MizBejabbers profile image86
        MizBejabbersposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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

    3. profile image0
      erikmamaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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).

  2. profile image0
    PrettyPantherposted 14 months ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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?

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                I am only interested in discussing what is currently realistically on the table, which at this point, is barely anything yet you're frothing at the mouth about how far liberals will go to take away your guns.

  3. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 14 months ago

    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.

  4. Live to Learn profile image75
    Live to Learnposted 14 months ago

    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.

  5. Valeant profile image88
    Valeantposted 14 months ago

    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/

    1. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      GA

      1. Valeant profile image88
        Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        None 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.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Valeant profile image88
            Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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?

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Valeant profile image88
            Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Valeant profile image88
                Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. Valeant profile image88
                    Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    https://hubstatic.com/15478297.jpg

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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

  6. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 14 months ago

    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/

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  7. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 14 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/15478547.jpg

  8. Credence2 profile image79
    Credence2posted 14 months ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Credence2 profile image79
        Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

  9. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 14 months ago

    I always wonder about this and the thinking behind an assault weapons ban.


    https://hubstatic.com/15480194.jpg

    1. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I imagine Biden will beable to push this through.

  10. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 14 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/15482681.jpg

  11. Valeant profile image88
    Valeantposted 14 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/15482767_f1024.jpg

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)