Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem

guy39 · April 3rd, 2018, 06:09 PM

Quote:

The assault weapons ban is one of the top policy proposals from March for Our Lives and other gun control advocates. But it’s also one of the gun control measures with the least supportive evidence behind it.

Quote:

For that, the best review of the evidence is an extensive report by the RAND Corporation released in March, which looked at US studies on gun control, including assault weapons bans at the state level.

Here, too, the news is not good for an assault weapons ban. RAND found that the available studies were often contradictory. Focusing specifically on the most rigorous studies, RAND found the evidence for bans’ effects on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines on mass shootings and violent crime in general to be “inconclusive.”

Quote:

That’s because only a small percentage of overall gun violence involves assault weapons, with the great majority of firearm homicides involving more conventional handguns. And Morral said there’s no reason to believe an assault weapons ban would have any effect on suicides, which have in recent years made up around 60 percent of all gun deaths.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...research-study

goober · April 3rd, 2018, 06:40 PM

To be effective,you need a ban on civilian ownership of semi automatic weapons.

That works. For those who support evidence based solutions.

guy39 · April 3rd, 2018, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

To be effective,you need a ban on civilian ownership of semi automatic weapons.

That works. For those who support evidence based solutions.

A total gun ban would be even more effective. If you can get past the Constitution and a civil war part. This is not Australia mate

goober · April 3rd, 2018, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy39

A total gun ban would be even more effective. If you can get past the Constitution and a civil war part. This is not Australia mate

It's the second amendment, and until a few years ago, it didn't mean what it does now.

Big clue "Amendment" it can be removed.
Bigger clue, the supreme court can say it means what people thought it meant for the first couple of hundred years of it's existence.

It's not that hard.

guy39 · April 3rd, 2018, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

It's the second amendment, and until a few years ago, it didn't mean what it does now.

Big clue "Amendment" it can be removed.
Bigger clue, the supreme court can say it means what people thought it meant for the first couple of hundred years of it's existence.

It's not that hard.

Yes, you are correct on all those points. You and I will not be alive to see that happen. Contrary to hoggie boy dreams, the millennial's really are not all on board with that either.

Quote:

Millennials Are No More Liberal On Gun Control Than Elders, Polls Show

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/24/58806...ers-polls-show

Quote:

How a post-Columbine generation views gun control

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nger-americans

Quote:

News Outlets Ignore Millennials' Skepticism of Gun Control

https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/29/t...als-skepticism

Marcus Livius · April 3rd, 2018, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

To be effective,you need a ban on civilian ownership of semi automatic weapons.

That works. For those who support evidence based solutions.

Britain has strict gun laws, yet the murder rate per capita in London have surpassed New York City.

People will kill. At one time or another, there surely must have been some idiots in neolithic and ancient times that were accusing a rock or a stick of being an "assuault weapon". Whether he was conservative or liberal probably didn't matter, but most thinking people in that community would have thought he was the village idiot simply because a weapon by definition must have an offensive capability. Without an offensive capability, it is by definition not a weapon but nothing more than a shield.

goodpen · April 3rd, 2018, 07:32 PM

Assault weapon? What is not one that is used by a person intent on hurting or killing people? Assualt is the used to describe what a person does to others.

Marcus Livius · April 3rd, 2018, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodpen

Assault weapon? What is not one that is used by a person intent on hurting or killing people? Assualt is the used to describe what a person does to others.

ALL weapons are intent on hurting or killing people. If it don't hurt, it IS NOT A FREAKING WEAPON. It is about as stupid as classifying a plane that can actually fly as a "flying plane". Assault weapon definitions as used by anti-gun proponents is at best libtardation in perhaps it's purest form.

Hollywood · April 4th, 2018, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus Livius

Britain has strict gun laws, yet the murder rate per capita in London have surpassed New York City.

People will kill. At one time or another, there surely must have been some idiots in neolithic and ancient times that were accusing a rock or a stick of being an "assuault weapon". Whether he was conservative or liberal probably didn't matter, but most thinking people in that community would have thought he was the village idiot simply because a weapon by definition must have an offensive capability. Without an offensive capability, it is by definition not a weapon but nothing more than a shield.

There's an entire thread on that. If you actually read the article it clearly statse that in official murder rate was exceeded by ONE person in ONE month, ONE time, and that actually London is about twice as safe as NYC.

Jimgorn · April 4th, 2018, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

It's the second amendment, and until a few years ago, it didn't mean what it does now.

In what way??

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Big clue "Amendment" it can be removed.

No....It can only be changed or repealed by another amendment

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Bigger clue, the supreme court can say it means what people thought it meant for the first couple of hundred years of it's existence.

The Supreme Court can be challenged, and in this case reading something into the 2nd amendment would definatly bring a challenge...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015	Grizz1	Current Events	95	January 5th, 2016 04:22 AM
The Case for Banning Assault Weapons	LongWinded	Gun Control	0	December 10th, 2015 01:07 PM
Assault Weapons Legality	excalibur	Current Events	9	April 17th, 2013 12:33 PM
THE NATIONAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN	sumara	Current Events	6	January 24th, 2013 05:19 PM
The Assault Weapons Ban Was a Failure	sumara	Current Events	0	January 1st, 2013 01:44 PM

April 3rd, 2018, 06:40 PM	#2
goober Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: massachusetts Posts: 10,710	To be effective,you need a ban on civilian ownership of semi automatic weapons. That works. For those who support evidence based solutions.

April 3rd, 2018, 07:32 PM	#7
goodpen Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,239	Assault weapon? What is not one that is used by a person intent on hurting or killing people? Assualt is the used to describe what a person does to others.