Reply to What does it take to get a little gun control

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What does it take to get a little gun control "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]
[quote=Anonymous] Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect. [/quote]

The FBI Uniform Crime Report is an unbiased source of information. Here is what it shows for rifle homicides from 1994-2004 and then 2005-2015.

1994:  757 rifle homicides
1995:  654 rifle homicides
1996:  561 rifle homicides
1997:  638 rifle homicides
1998:  548 rifle homicides
1999:  400 rifle homicides
2000:  411 rifle homicides
2001:  386 rifle homicides
2002:  488 rifle homicides
2003:  392 rifle homicides
2004:  403 rifle homicides
(Total rifle homicides = 5,638)

2005:  445 rifle homicides
2006:  438 rifle homicides
2007:  453 rifle homicides
2008:  380 rifle homicides 
2009:  351 rifle homicides
2010:  367 rifle homicides 
2011:  332 rifle homicides 
2012:  298 rifle homicides
2013:  285 rifle homicides 
2014:  258 rifle homicides 
2015:  215 rifle homicides 
(Total rifle homicides = 3,822)

Delta = 1,816 rifle homicides

Did the assault weapon ban work?

[quote=Anonymous]- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics. [/quote]

At least half of the U.S. gun deaths each year are suicides. That’s a handgun issue, as are accidental shootings, and domestic violence shootings, and inner city mass shootings.

[quote=Anonymous]- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.[/quote]

If you believe guns are trafficked from states with normal laws into gun control states why wouldn’t the same thing happen with magazines?

[quote=Anonymous]- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure. [/quote]

You’ve identified the crux of the problem. If there is a new assault weapon ban without confiscation of both the rifles and magazines very little will change. At the time of the 94 ban it’s estimated there were between 1M-2M in the U.S. Now there are over 25M and rising rapidly.

[quote=Anonymous]- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters. [/quote]

Your words from below: “Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall”

You don’t seem to care about raw numbers, like the deaths of Black Americans. Most inner city mass shootings are committed with handguns. The new weapon of choice are Glock pistols with 3D printed “Glock switches” that make them fully automatic.

A large percentage of mass shootings are domestic violence related and aren’t committed with rifles.

[quote=Anonymous]- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.[/quote]

Thanks for admitting that an assault weapon ban is an attempt to address a fraction of a fraction of gun homicides.

I already disproved your “flatly false” assertion above.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics