Common Sense Gun Laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody wants to ban guns. That's just a right-wing talking point to rile up their base.

No most left-wingers want to ban guns.

I live in a densely populated suburb where neighbors watch out for each other and the police are only minutes away. I don't feel the need to own a gun.

Yes, they can call the police who will arrive minutes to late and take a report.

If I lived in a rural area where there was a mile between me and my nearest neighbor I would absolutely own a gun. But under no circumstances would I need a high-capacity magazine. That's the sort of thing we want banned.
What is high-capacity? Over 15 for a hand gun, 30 for an AR-15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should be allowed to carry in Congress and the Supreme Court. Until that's possible, they are all hypocrites with blood on their hands.

Yes. Why can't they have to deal with what they impose on the rest of us?

[Anonymous]

Majority of the states (29) are constitutional carry states. Just need the rest to get with the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should be allowed to carry in Congress and the Supreme Court. Until that's possible, they are all hypocrites with blood on their hands.

Yes. Why can't they have to deal with what they impose on the rest of us?

+1

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good. I can’t wait until chevron deference is in the trash so we don’t have to endlessly fight laws willed into existence by unaccountable bureaucrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. I can’t wait until chevron deference is in the trash so we don’t have to endlessly fight laws willed into existence by unaccountable bureaucrats.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To Clarence Thomas. You and your wife are vile idiots. This country is going to hell in a hand basket due to people like you.

Keep up the good work, Thomas. Congress creates laws, not the executive branch. Thank you for following the constitution!

[Anonymous]

Assault weapons bans work, don’t let the NRA “culture issues” sway you. They work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assault weapons bans work, don’t let the NRA “culture issues” sway you. They work.

any weapon used by an assailant is an assault weapon, any weapon used by a victim is a defensive weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assault weapons bans work, don’t let the NRA “culture issues” sway you. They work.

+1. They were banned before and should be banned again. It was fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assault weapons bans work, don’t let the NRA “culture issues” sway you. They work.

+1. They were banned before and should be banned again. It was fine.

As someone who is probably ideologically 100% opposite of you on this issue I’d really like to probe this thought process because from my perspective it’s so self evidently pointless and infeasible. What would a new ban look like? What would the exact language of such a ban be (semantics are important in law)? How would you square it with existing case law? What would happen to the tens if not hundreds of millions of arms that would be implicated? Who would enforce the new law and how would they do it? What would the goal of such a law be and how would success be measured?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assault weapons bans work, don’t let the NRA “culture issues” sway you. They work.

+1. They were banned before and should be banned again. It was fine.

As someone who is probably ideologically 100% opposite of you on this issue I’d really like to probe this thought process because from my perspective it’s so self evidently pointless and infeasible. What would a new ban look like? What would the exact language of such a ban be (semantics are important in law)? How would you square it with existing case law? What would happen to the tens if not hundreds of millions of arms that would be implicated? Who would enforce the new law and how would they do it? What would the goal of such a law be and how would success be measured?

Building something is very difficult. Tearing things down is cheap and easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assault weapons bans work, don’t let the NRA “culture issues” sway you. They work.

+1. They were banned before and should be banned again. It was fine.

Some things haven’t changed much since then. A RAND review of gun studies, updated in 2020, concluded there is “inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.”

“We don’t think there are great studies available yet to state the effectiveness of assault weapons bans,” Andrew Morral, a RAND senior behavioral scientist who led the project, told FactCheck.org in a phone interview. “That’s not to say they aren’t effective. The research we reviewed doesn’t provide compelling evidence one way or the other.”

There has, however, been emerging research about post-ban trends that may provide information that could be useful to evaluating what worked and what didn’t in the 1994 assault weapons ban.

For example, research published in 2019 in Criminology & Public Policy by Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, found that after controlling for population growth, the assault weapons ban did not appear to have much of an effect on the number of mass public shootings, comparing a pre-ban period with the 10 years the ban was in effect. But he found that the incidence and severity of mass public shootings, meaning the number killed and injured, has increased over the last decade, after the ban had expired.

Duwe, author of “Mass Murder in the United States: A History,“ documented 158 mass public shootings in the U.S. between 1976 and 2018, which included shootings that “occur in the absence of other criminal activity (e.g., robberies, drug deals, and gang ‘turf wars’) in which a gun was used to kill four or more victims at a public location within a 24-hour period.”

Duwe also looked at three-, five- and 10-year moving averages to flatten out some of the extreme spikes and dips in individual years.

Duwe found that the lowest 10-year average in mass shooting rates was between 1996-2005, which roughly corresponds with the ban period. But Duwe notes that that “aligns with broader trends observed for crime and violence in the United States.” In other words, it’s hard to know how much the assault weapons ban may have affected mass shootings during that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assault weapons bans work, don’t let the NRA “culture issues” sway you. They work.

+1. They were banned before and should be banned again. It was fine.

Some things haven’t changed much since then. A RAND review of gun studies, updated in 2020, concluded there is “inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.”

“We don’t think there are great studies available yet to state the effectiveness of assault weapons bans,” Andrew Morral, a RAND senior behavioral scientist who led the project, told FactCheck.org in a phone interview. “That’s not to say they aren’t effective. The research we reviewed doesn’t provide compelling evidence one way or the other.”

There has, however, been emerging research about post-ban trends that may provide information that could be useful to evaluating what worked and what didn’t in the 1994 assault weapons ban.

For example, research published in 2019 in Criminology & Public Policy by Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, found that after controlling for population growth, the assault weapons ban did not appear to have much of an effect on the number of mass public shootings, comparing a pre-ban period with the 10 years the ban was in effect. But he found that the incidence and severity of mass public shootings, meaning the number killed and injured, has increased over the last decade, after the ban had expired.

Duwe, author of “Mass Murder in the United States: A History,“ documented 158 mass public shootings in the U.S. between 1976 and 2018, which included shootings that “occur in the absence of other criminal activity (e.g., robberies, drug deals, and gang ‘turf wars’) in which a gun was used to kill four or more victims at a public location within a 24-hour period.”

Duwe also looked at three-, five- and 10-year moving averages to flatten out some of the extreme spikes and dips in individual years.

Duwe found that the lowest 10-year average in mass shooting rates was between 1996-2005, which roughly corresponds with the ban period. But Duwe notes that that “aligns with broader trends observed for crime and violence in the United States.” In other words, it’s hard to know how much the assault weapons ban may have affected mass shootings during that time.

That is actually quite misleading because it misses some critical nuance. Overall the numbers of mass shootings were in fact down quite a bit, but the aggregate numbers ended up skewed in 1999 by an anomalous cluster and spike of shootings consisting of the Columbine shooting, LA Jewish Center shooting and some other mass shootings which didn't involve assault weapons.