Biden says he'll renew push for assault weapons ban following spate of mass shootings

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

Kids need to swim, they don’t need to be shot in school by an AR 15

They don't need to drink coke though. Or use playground equipment. Or ride bicycles. All cause death. 

 

Besides, nearly a thousand children drown each year. Surely that is enough to ban all swimming pools, both public and private.  That is far more than were killed by AR15s. 

[coolcarer]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

How many lives that would have been saved by an "assault weapon" would then not be saved if they were banned though?

Ones enough but 22,900 lives lost by firearms last year, 3% to assault style weapons, even if you cut that to 1% as the murders would use alternative weapons then that’s a lot of lives saved from the worst mass shootings

[coolcarer]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

They don't need to drink coke though. Or use playground equipment. Or ride bicycles. All cause death. 

 

Besides, nearly a thousand children drown each year. Surely that is enough to ban all swimming pools, both public and private.  That is far more than were killed by AR15s. 

Those items are not made to kill, stop the nonsense

[Hanaguma]

4 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Because this is about a ban on assault weapons not handguns, that’s never going to happen

You can't ban assault weapons either because nobody actually knows what they are. There are too many ill informed people who think that "assault weapon" means machine gun or a super powered rifle. 

 

If you were actually serious about safety, you would look at the bigger problem first.

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Those items are not made to kill, stop the nonsense

Irrelevant.   The argument was "if it saves just one child's life".  It is an emotional argument that has no basis in practical reality or public policy.  

 

You could save 1000 children every year by simply closing every swimming pool. Swimming isnt necessary, kids can get exercise in a safer way that is less dangerous.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Hanaguma

[coolcarer]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

You can't ban assault weapons either because nobody actually knows what they are. There are too many ill informed people who think that "assault weapon" means machine gun or a super powered rifle. 

 

If you were actually serious about safety, you would look at the bigger problem first.

Of course you can, they were banned before. Why carry on with this nonsense?

[coolcarer]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

Irrelevant.   The argument was "if it saves just one child's life".  It is an emotional argument that has no basis in practical reality or public policy.  

Not irrelevant at all and emotion plays a good part of democratic policy making. Look it up.

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

Of course you can, they were banned before. Why carry on with this nonsense?

You mean the Clinton years ban? That was no ban. People who owned them were allowed to keep them and use them as before. It was a ban on manufacture only. 

[Hanaguma]

2 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Not irrelevant at all and emotion plays a good part of democratic policy making. Look it up.

If you mean "Democratic policy making" as in the political party, I agree with you. And it has gotten them nowhere. 

 

So then, what ELSE do you think should be banned "if it saves just one child's life"?

[coolcarer]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

You mean the Clinton years ban? That was no ban. People who owned them were allowed to keep them and use them as before. It was a ban on manufacture only. 

Yet there was a drop in mass murder events. I know let’s do nothing because gun law rights are too important

[coolcarer]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

If you mean "Democratic policy making" as in the political party, I agree with you. And it has gotten them nowhere. 

 

So then, what ELSE do you think should be banned "if it saves just one child's life"?

No I did not mean in as in a political party

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Yet there was a drop in mass murder events. I know let’s do nothing because gun law rights are too important

Really?

 

Criminologists and other researchers found that the ban had little to no effect on firearm deaths or the lethality of gun crimes. Studies have found that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with weapons which are not covered by the AWB, and that assault weapons are less likely to be used in homicides than other weapons. There is tentative evidence that the frequency of mass shootings may have slightly decreased while the ban was in effect, but research is inconclusive, with independent researchers finding conflicting results.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[coolcarer]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Really?

 

Criminologists and other researchers found that the ban had little to no effect on firearm deaths or the lethality of gun crimes. Studies have found that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with weapons which are not covered by the AWB, and that assault weapons are less likely to be used in homicides than other weapons. There is tentative evidence that the frequency of mass shootings may have slightly decreased while the ban was in effect, but research is inconclusive, with independent researchers finding conflicting results.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

That’s a hot topic of debate and the ban was not just on manufacturing as you claimed. Wiki must have missed that for you.

 

The bill specifically changed the federal criminal code "to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon," however, it specified which semiautomatic assault weapons were included.

The bill banned more than a dozen specific firearms and certain features on guns, but because there are so many modifications that can be made on weapons and the fact that it did not outright ban all semiautomatic weapons, many such guns continued to be legally used.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/understanding-1994-assault-weapons-ban-ended/story?id=65546858

[Credo]

47 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

You mean the Clinton years ban? That was no ban. People who owned them were allowed to keep them and use them as before. It was a ban on manufacture only. 

Try not to go off the rails.  I support banning these people-killers, but not necessarily for everyone.  People that have them, can keep them, people who want to purchase one will have to show a reasonable need.  Like dangerous drugs, it's not about a total ban in the legal sense, it's about strict controls.   The average person who is having a bad day should not be able to go in, purchase one, go to the local synagogue/mosque/gay bar and rid the world of his perceived enemies.   

 

And when I say strict, I do mean strict.  Special background checks, special licensing, limited ability to carry, limited areas where use is permitted, no re-sale to unauthorized owners, etc..   

 

[Hanaguma]

41 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

That’s a hot topic of debate and the ban was not just on manufacturing as you claimed. Wiki must have missed that for you.

 

The bill specifically changed the federal criminal code "to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon," however, it specified which semiautomatic assault weapons were included.

The bill banned more than a dozen specific firearms and certain features on guns, but because there are so many modifications that can be made on weapons and the fact that it did not outright ban all semiautomatic weapons, many such guns continued to be legally used.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/understanding-1994-assault-weapons-ban-ended/story?id=65546858

From your link;

 

The biggest of the various loopholes in the bill was that it only applied to the specified types of weapons and large-capacity magazines that were created after the bill became law, meaning that there was nothing illegal about owning or selling such a weapon or magazine that had been created before the law was signed.

 

Which is basically what I said, is it not? Anything before the law was grandfathered in. 

[Hanaguma]

2 minutes ago, Credo said:

Try not to go off the rails.  I support banning these people-killers, but not necessarily for everyone.  People that have them, can keep them, people who want to purchase one will have to show a reasonable need.  Like dangerous drugs, it's not about a total ban in the legal sense, it's about strict controls.   The average person who is having a bad day should not be able to go in, purchase one, go to the local synagogue/mosque/gay bar and rid the world of his perceived enemies.   

 

And when I say strict, I do mean strict.  Special background checks, special licensing, limited ability to carry, limited areas where use is permitted, no re-sale to unauthorized owners, etc..   

 

It would help if you defined exactly what "people killers" you mean. A semiauto Ruger Mini 14 rifle is OK, but a Colt AR15 copy is not, even if they fire the same bullet from the same magazine? 

 

Personally I have no trouble with a waiting period to purchase a firearm (surprise surprise) but I would apply it to all of them equally. 48 hours and a clean rap sheet seems reasonable to me. 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Statistic show that more people were beaten to death with bare hands in 2021 than were killed by rifles (including assault weapons). Twice as many were stabbed to death.  Do we ban hands and knives too?

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

It's all about the publicity. A few mass killings get the media attention that individual murders do not.

Jumping and bandwagons comes to mind.

 

NZ banned assault style weapons ( for law abiding people ) a while ago and seems the murder with weapons rate has gone up, given the number being on the news now, compared with before.

Of course any weapon is available to criminals and gang members.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Credo said:

And when I say strict, I do mean strict.  Special background checks, special licensing, limited ability to carry, limited areas where use is permitted, no re-sale to unauthorized owners, etc..   

Most have no objection to such IMO, though criminals will never have to submit to such to obtain weapons.

[ozimoron]

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's all about the publicity. A few mass killings get the media attention that individual murders do not.

Jumping and bandwagons comes to mind.

 

NZ banned assault style weapons ( for law abiding people ) a while ago and seems the murder with weapons rate has gone up, given the number being on the news now, compared with before.

Of course any weapon is available to criminals and gang members.

That's not the full story.

 

Sadly, New Zealand police lost control of guns when they stopped registering 96% of firearms. Now it’s those most common, unpoliced firearms which almost invariably turn up in day-to-day gun crime.”

 

Gang culture is reported to be on the rise in New Zealand, with police figures showing a 13% increase in recruits last year on 2019 – which has been linked to the arrival of gang members from Australia under the controversial 501 deportation policy.

 

“Our new firearms laws, while modelled on the Australian ones, are nowhere near as strict – we think our laws should be brought closer.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/new-zealand-ardern-flags-further-gun-control-reforms-after-firearms-charges-peak

[ozimoron]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Most have no objection to such IMO, though criminals will never have to submit to such to obtain weapons.

True, but if the penalty for mere possession of a banned or unregistered weapon was increased to many years in gaol it must have an effect. It's extremely difficult for criminals to possess weapons if there is a proper crackdown.

[Bkk Brian]

8 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Now you are changing your claim. First you said "the AR 15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters". Statistics show that you are wrong.  NOW you are saying it is the weapon of choice for the deadliest shootings. In that, you are right. But it is irrelevant. 

That's what I always claimed:

"AR-15-style rifles have been the weapon of choice for the killers responsible for the deadliest mass shootings in American history"

As evidenced by the gov investigation

 

Show me where I have claimed they are  "the AR 15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters".

 

Are you referring to this post?

What makes the AR-15 style rifle the weapon of choice for mass shooters?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-15-mass-shootings-60-minutes-2022-05-29/

 

Note the question mark, what does that mean to you?  It is the headline of the article. When you quote me in future do not dishonestly edit my quote by leaving that out and try actually reading the article.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

That's what I always claimed:

"AR-15-style rifles have been the weapon of choice for the killers responsible for the deadliest mass shootings in American history"

As evidenced by the gov investigation

 

Show me where I have claimed they are  "the AR 15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters".

 

Are you referring to this post?

What makes the AR-15 style rifle the weapon of choice for mass shooters?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-15-mass-shootings-60-minutes-2022-05-29/

 

Note the question mark, what does that mean to you?  It is the headline of the article. When you quote me in future do not dishonestly edit my quote by leaving that out and try actually reading the article.

You must have a lot of free time on your hands.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

You must have a lot of free time on your hands.

Always have time to address someone who accuses me of something that is not true.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

Always have time to address someone who accuses me of something that is not true.

You may have missed my point.

[Hanaguma]

3 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

That's what I always claimed:

"AR-15-style rifles have been the weapon of choice for the killers responsible for the deadliest mass shootings in American history"

As evidenced by the gov investigation

 

Show me where I have claimed they are  "the AR 15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters".

 

Are you referring to this post?

What makes the AR-15 style rifle the weapon of choice for mass shooters?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-15-mass-shootings-60-minutes-2022-05-29/

 

Note the question mark, what does that mean to you?  It is the headline of the article. When you quote me in future do not dishonestly edit my quote by leaving that out and try actually reading the article.

I did read the article.  Thought that you were making a statement of fact with the question, not just repeating the title of the article, sorry. But even at that, the article does not in any way prove the assertion of the headline. It says the AR is the weapon of choice for the WORST mass murderers. That is a different point altogether, and one I would agree with.

 

However it is also irrelevant because other guns can be used to achieve the same result.  Even the article admits that ARs are rarely used in crimes. The rest of the article is fear mongering and heart string tugging without much substance. 

[EVENKEEL]

Why is the solution to mass shootings banning weapons and not the root problem like mental illness?

 

But the solution to border problem is to combat so called root problem, huh.

[Bkk Brian]

44 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I did read the article.  Thought that you were making a statement of fact with the question, not just repeating the title of the article, sorry. But even at that, the article does not in any way prove the assertion of the headline. It says the AR is the weapon of choice for the WORST mass murderers. That is a different point altogether, and one I would agree with.

 

However it is also irrelevant because other guns can be used to achieve the same result.  Even the article admits that ARs are rarely used in crimes. The rest of the article is fear mongering and heart string tugging without much substance. 

The article headline had a question mark as did my quote of it that you edited out. A question does not make an assertion. 

 

Its also very relevant.

[coolcarer]

10 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

From your link;

 

The biggest of the various loopholes in the bill was that it only applied to the specified types of weapons and large-capacity magazines that were created after the bill became law, meaning that there was nothing illegal about owning or selling such a weapon or magazine that had been created before the law was signed.

 

Which is basically what I said, is it not? Anything before the law was grandfathered in. 

“Which is basically what I said, is it not? Anything before the law was grandfathered in.”

 

no you did not, you said this, a ban on manufacture only. That is incorrect as I ready pointed out before you decided an attempt at deflection would suit you better

11 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

You mean the Clinton years ban? That was no ban. People who owned them were allowed to keep them and use them as before. It was a ban on manufacture only. 

 

[Hanaguma]

37 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

“Which is basically what I said, is it not? Anything before the law was grandfathered in.”

 

no you did not, you said this, a ban on manufacture only. That is incorrect as I ready pointed out before you decided an attempt at deflection would suit you better

 

Well obviously a ban on manufacture would create a ban on sale, transfer, etc.  The key point is that anything existing before the so-called ban was implemented was not included. So it was a guaranteed exercise in futility.  And also why there was little discernable impact.  

 

As for Old Joe, he sounds clueless. He said " It (meaning semi automatic weapons) has no, no social redeeming value, zero, none. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profits for gun manufacturers". Guess he is forgetting law enforcement, the military, hunting, sport shooting, varmint removal, etc.  Guarantee that he is being guarded by men carrying semi automatic firearms, as well as fully automatic.  

 

And people wonder why so-called "gun nuts" are paranoid. When the president is talking so casually about taking away your legally purchased property and telling you that you have no social redeeming value, of course there will be pushback.  Rifles of all kinds ARE NOT THE PROBLEM in America.  

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

Why is the solution to mass shootings banning weapons and not the root problem like mental illness?

 

But the solution to border problem is to combat so called root problem, huh.

When you make a claim you must substantiate it or you are trolling and this case you are trolling. I read about this yesterday where it's claimed that most mass shootings are planned meticulously. All these links were obtained fro a simple google search which took me a single minute. You could have dispelled your own myth easily but chose to push this false right wing narrative instead.

 

Here is evidence that you a re wrong, now please produce up a credible source which supports your claim.

 

The reality is that people with mental illness account for a very small proportion of perpetrators of mass shootings in the U.S., says Ragy Girgis, MD, associate professor of clinical psychiatry in the Columbia University Department of Psychiatry and the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

 

https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/mass-shootings-and-mental-illness-5

 

https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/dispelling-myth

 

Data from Columbia Mass Murder Database reveal psychosis and other serious psychiatric illness absent in the majority of perpetrators

 

https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/new-findings-columbia-mass-murder-database

 

U.S. popular and political discourse frequently applies the mental illness descriptor to white male shooters, but analysis of whiteness itself, or discussions of whiteness as a race or ethnicity, are usually omitted from published studies about U.S. mass shootings.37–39 By contrast, race and ethnicity often play a key role in accounts of mass shootings when the perpetrator is not white.

 

https://journals.lww.com/hrpjournal/fulltext/2021/01000/mental_illness,_mass_shootings,_and_the_future_of.6.aspx

Edited November 26, 2022 by ozimoron