Hanaguma

Al Gore, 2008: "the entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in five years." Al Gore, 2009: "a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years."

The weapon of choice is a very limited number of crimes, and which could easily be replaced by another if needed. No mass shooter ever said, "damn, I can't get an AR, guess I will just go home and watch tv". Meanwhile, the legal and responsible owners of 20 million plus guns get punished. Yeah, I can see the logic there...

Agreed. This "ban" does not remove one single gun from one single person.

In term of creating public policy no, it isn't important. It makes up less than 2% of overall homicides, but eats up a huge slice of attention. Chicago alone has the equivalent EVERY WEEKEND. But somehow that evades the public eye. And yours too.

It didnt evade me, I simply don't think it is very important. Creating legislation based on random events and sentiment is not a recipe for good governing.

So, you mean a subset of mass shootings, which are a subset of shootings then.... Interesting that shootings which involve, how can I say, non caucasian people, do not elicit a response. Is it really a good use of time to so micromanage people?

According to Statista, handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shootings, by 2 to 1 over ALL long guns (not just AR15 types). https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ My challenge still stands. Would you, as a person in favor of gun control, put a sign outside your house saying "This Is A Gun Free Zone"? And if not, why not?

Hunting is eco friendly, far more so than relying on over processed and packaged food from a supermarket. "Farm to Table" is a common mantra for eco warriors. How about "Forest to table"? Hunters are stewards of the environment.

Not to mention easier to carry than a bolt action rifle. And the ammo is both lighter and cheaper.

I have a proposal for all the anti gun folks here- how about you put a sign outside your house, on your front lawn, that proudly proclaims, "This House Is A Gun Free Zone"? It will make you feel much safer, I am sure. Anyone who wants to rob you will surely leave their firearms in their car before kicking down your front door... And regarding mass shootings, a majority are committed with handguns. As are the vast majority of murders. This law is classic leftist virtue signalling. Appearing to do something useful is more important than actually doing something useful to them.

Similar experience in CHiang Mai last summer. We were staying for a month in an AirBnB. Used an agent for the Residency Certificate. Had to go to three branches of Bangkok Bank before finding one to open an account (Siam TV Branch). I think it helped to say that we needed a place for retirement funds and also condo purchase. Took about 20 minutes. ETA we used CHiang Mai Buddy, paid I think 1300 baht for each certificate. Opened two accounts- one for me and one for my wife.

The "Look At ME" generation strikes again. Not sure which is worse, the idiot who poses for such a picture or the legion of idiots who encourage it by their clicks/likes/hearts/messages. You can see the same in Thailand at various sacred sites. I remember seeing a group of Korean teenagers doing one of those 'group jump' style pictures in front of Wat Chedi Luang in Chiang Mai. The guard gave them a good shout and they at least had the grace to slink away in shame.

So far, the loudest voices are the cries of agony at MSNBC and other leftie media outlets. They won't be able to milk this story for the next several weeks/months. Brian Stelter and his ilk are crying into their superhero pillows.

THIS is the point a lot of climate cultists miss. The abundant supply of cheap energy is what drives economic prosperity. It also drove women's liberation and will drive democracy in the future. The green people are trying to lock the door to prosperity on struggling and poor countries. "We got ours, the heck with you". When climate alarmists start acting like they really believe the earth is dying and the oceans are rising, I will begin to take heed. Waiting for Barack Obama to sell his Cape Cod mansion....

One of the biggest negatives about renewable power, besides storage, is simple land usage. Depending on the study, it takes 100 times more land to produce wind/solar energy as compared to a nuclear plant. In crowded Europe, this is a big problem.

This is true. If you are hanging out in/near the fleshpots of Pattaya or some other "entertainment district" is may colour your impressions.

That is the tragedy of governing by virtue signal. Germany can tout being non-nuclear, yet still burns coal by the boatload. And buys nuclear produced energy from other countries. Surplus of energy is the hallmark of a growing and modernizing civilization. The explosion of energy sources in the 20th century dragged untold millions out of poverty. It also liberated women from onerous labor- refrigerators, washing machines, and the like were key components of womens liberation.

This is a bombshell. The walls are closing in on the President and his clan. It is the beginning of the end for his Presidency.

Using that logic, the right to put a swimming pool in your back yard is not worth a child's life. If you can't go to a municipal pool or private gym, perhaps you shouldn't swim. The slaughter is done with handguns, not long guns.

Koper notes often that it is hard to distinguish between shootings with assault weapons and those with other weapons using large capacity magazines. He also notes on page 8 that assault weapons of all types account for only 2% of gun crime, and most of those were assault pistols rather than assault rifles. Since mass shootings (especially involving assault rifles) are such a small subset of all crimes, getting accurate data is impossible. So he spends more time on crime/murder in general. Which is logical when discussing policy. In his conclusion on page 112, he states "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence". And on the next page, "the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.".

Interesting opinion piece, mostly a response to another journalist doubting their story. Koper's research, which I cited, was sponsored by the US Department of Justice. He found there was not enough evidence to substantiate the claim that the ban was responsible for the decrease in mass shootings, and similarly that there was no correlation between the ban and gun crime in general. Not surprising, given that only 2% of murders are committed with long guns of ANY kind (shotgun, bolt action/lever action rifle, semi auto rifle). To change that number to a smaller one would require a level of confiscation and enforcement that would not be accepted in America. So, it is folly to think it is a valid solution.

Feinstein was wrong. Trump is right. It is a people problem, not a gun problem. To answer your "question you should be asking", the research is agnostic. No evidence either way.

Such a law would not pass constitutional challenge, especially with the current composition of the Supreme Court. And I think millions of Americans would feel themselves to be still law abiding if they were to engage in an act of civil disobedience by refusing to surrender their constitutional rights.

Sorry, forgot the link... https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

But what happened to the overall murder rate? The definitive study was done by Christopher Koper in 2004. He concluded that: 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. The ban was not a ban at all. It was a politically motivated bandaid with no chance of success. But if you actually want a ban that includes confiscating weapons from 25 million law abiding Americans, best of luck.