Trump says mass shootings are not 'a gun problem' as 2024 GOP hopefuls pledge loyalty to the NRA

[VocalNeal]

On 4/15/2023 at 1:26 PM, bendejo said:

"Promoting the arming of US citizens" is the NRA cause. 

I would say making money for gun manufacturers.???? That being said there are lots of guns further north but not the level of crimes involving guns.

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, pomchop said:

nobody has ever said that having some common sense gun laws like banning ar 15 types , requiring background checks and red flag laws will magically stop all gun killings...but if it saves a bunch of lives why would anyone be against that?  in fact all the polls show huge majorities of citizens want these measures...i guess a lot of people didn't like seatbelt laws which have saved thousands upon thousands of lives....per your "logic" we should just say there is zero that can be done to save lives......NRA talking points to get you to buy MORE guns...they don't give a crap how many people die, it's all about the green.

There is no evidence that banning AR15s and similar weapons will save any lives.  Those few people who use them in crimes will simply use another firearm.  You can carry three handguns just as easily as one rifle.  25 million Americans own these weapons, and they are only used in 2% of murders.  You can thank the Democrats for that, the AR platform wasnt that popular until 1994 when the Assault Weapons Ban was passed. If you want to make something popular, try and ban it!

[Chomper Higgot]

30 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

There is no evidence that banning AR15s and similar weapons will save any lives.  Those few people who use them in crimes will simply use another firearm.  You can carry three handguns just as easily as one rifle.  25 million Americans own these weapons, and they are only used in 2% of murders.  You can thank the Democrats for that, the AR platform wasnt that popular until 1994 when the Assault Weapons Ban was passed. If you want to make something popular, try and ban it!

Defeatist logic.

 

Doing nothing will certainly give rise to more deaths.

 

Removing an particularly lethal and favored weapon of mass killers will as you say cause them to choose other weapons, less accurate, less powerful and less lethal.

 

 

[Hanaguma]

42 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Defeatist logic.

 

Doing nothing will certainly give rise to more deaths.

 

Removing an particularly lethal and favored weapon of mass killers will as you say cause them to choose other weapons, less accurate, less powerful and less lethal.

 

 

Accuracy and power mean little at close range, which is where most mass shootings happen.  But as usual the problem in America is so much larger than mass shootings. Why is so much energy and political capital expended on such a small part of the overall issue of gun violence, and violent crime in general? Particularly when the standard solution of "just ban the big bad guns" will not ever happen.  

[onthedarkside]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

There is no evidence that banning AR15s and similar weapons will save any lives.  Those few people who use them in crimes will simply use another firearm.  You can carry three handguns just as easily as one rifle.  25 million Americans own these weapons, and they are only used in 2% of murders.  You can thank the Democrats for that, the AR platform wasnt that popular until 1994 when the Assault Weapons Ban was passed. If you want to make something popular, try and ban it!

This is about the mass murders and you're wrong, there is evidence that when the assault ban was in place it reduced deaths via mass murders considerably. There is also no evidence in your claim that they would simply use another firearm. As again mass murders decreased.

 

https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/15/the-assault-weapon-ban-saved-lives/

 

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Accuracy and power mean little at close range, which is where most mass shootings happen.  But as usual the problem in America is so much larger than mass shootings. Why is so much energy and political capital expended on such a small part of the overall issue of gun violence, and violent crime in general? Particularly when the standard solution of "just ban the big bad guns" will not ever happen.  

“Accuracy and power mean little at close range”

Tell that to the Uvalde police officers cowering outside while kids were being murdered at close range.

 

Utter nonsense.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, onthedarkside said:

This is about the mass murders and you're wrong, there is evidence that when the assault ban was in place it reduced deaths via mass murders considerably. There is also no evidence in your claim that they would simply use another firearm. As again mass murders decreased.

 

https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/15/the-assault-weapon-ban-saved-lives/

 

There is also a problem with the classification of ‘mass shootings’.

 

Few people are concerned if a drug gang member shoots dead half a dozen other drug gang members.

 

What is of concern is killers arming themselves and going on murder sprees in schools, colleges, shopping malls, churches, synagogues and other places where law abiding citizens have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Let’s not mix the data.

[Hanaguma]

25 minutes ago, onthedarkside said:

This is about the mass murders and you're wrong, there is evidence that when the assault ban was in place it reduced deaths via mass murders considerably. There is also no evidence in your claim that they would simply use another firearm. As again mass murders decreased.

 

https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/15/the-assault-weapon-ban-saved-lives/

 

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.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Hanaguma
forgot link

[Hanaguma]

Sorry, forgot the link...

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

[onthedarkside]

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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.

 

The link you cite is to an irrelevant fact check on the assault weapon ban reducing overall gun crime.

 

Here is an example from it:

 

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.”

 

Nobody here is making the above claim, its not even on topic.

 

The question you should be asking is what would have happened to the overall murder rate if the ban had not been in force?

 

Additionally we are not on the topic of over all murder rates as I already mentioned in my post:

 

"Trump says mass shootings are not 'a gun problem' as 2024 GOP hopefuls pledge loyalty to the NRA"

 

 

[jvs]

25 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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.

If there is going to be a ban ,as you call it,a law that calls for people to hand in their guns would not "law abiding" people do so?

Or would they not abide by this law?

[jvs]

35 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is also a problem with the classification of ‘mass shootings’.

 

Few people are concerned if a drug gang member shoots dead half a dozen other drug gang members.

 

What is of concern is killers arming themselves and going on murder sprees in schools, colleges, shopping malls, churches, synagogues and other places where law abiding citizens have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Let’s not mix the data.

I can agree but any gun death is one .Personally i also do not care if

a bunch of gang bangers shoots each other,good riddance.

Also these criminals usually do not go on a shooting spree killing school children,it is mostly done by snowflakes who can not accept rejection or

anything negative in their lives.

 

 

 

[Hanaguma]

3 hours ago, jvs said:

If there is going to be a ban ,as you call it,a law that calls for people to hand in their guns would not "law abiding" people do so?

Or would they not abide by this law?

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. 

[onthedarkside]

Off topic post and reply removed, please stay on topic or you will find your post removed.

 

Trump says mass shootings are not 'a gun problem' as 2024 GOP hopefuls pledge loyalty to the NRA

 

 

[Hanaguma]

4 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

 

The link you cite is to an irrelevant fact check on the assault weapon ban reducing overall gun crime.

 

Here is an example from it:

 

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.”

 

Nobody here is making the above claim, its not even on topic.

 

The question you should be asking is what would have happened to the overall murder rate if the ban had not been in force?

 

Additionally we are not on the topic of over all murder rates as I already mentioned in my post:

 

"Trump says mass shootings are not 'a gun problem' as 2024 GOP hopefuls pledge loyalty to the NRA"

 

 

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. 

[onthedarkside]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

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. 

 

We all know Feinstein was wrong, I made that clear that nobody is making that claim. As for the research, there is already evidence to the claims I made which were:

 

there is evidence that when the assault ban was in place it reduced deaths via mass murders considerably. There is also no evidence in your claim that they would simply use another firearm. As again mass murders decreased.

 

 

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, onthedarkside said:

 

We all know Feinstein was wrong, I made that clear that nobody is making that claim. As for the research, there is already evidence to the claims I made which were:

 

there is evidence that when the assault ban was in place it reduced deaths via mass murders considerably. There is also no evidence in your claim that they would simply use another firearm. As again mass murders decreased.

 

 

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.

[onthedarkside]

42 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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.

An opinion piece it is not. 

 

You are making a specific claim:

 

"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 shooting"

 

Please provide the page number and appropriate quote out of the 114 page final Koper report that cites the ban was not responsible for a decrease in mass shootings as you claim. I've read through it and find no reference to that whatsoever.

 

Regards gun crime this is not about that, its is specifically regarding mass shootings. The topic at hand. Of which the Koper report does not address.

[Tug]

4 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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. 

The right to fire bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger is not worth a child’s life or an adult for that matter if a person is incompetent enough not to be able to work a bolt action rifle perhaps they shouldn’t own or be allowed to have one.Bottom line semi auto long guns should be banned large capacity mags should be banned there is no earthly reason a civilian needs or has a right to own one all stop.background checks and training are logical correct and in keeping with the 2ond amendment all stop.it is what the VAST majority of the American people want all stop.if the legislators don’t support what the majority wants vote them out!stop the slaughter 

[Hanaguma]

46 minutes ago, onthedarkside said:

An opinion piece it is not. 

 

You are making a specific claim:

 

"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 shooting"

 

Please provide the page number and appropriate quote out of the 114 page Koper report that cites the ban was not responsible for a decrease in mass shootings as you claim. I've read through it and find no reference to that whatsoever.

 

Regards gun crime this is not about that, its is specifically regarding mass shootings. The topic at hand. Of which the Koper report does not address.

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.".

[Hanaguma]

11 minutes ago, Tug said:

The right to fire bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger is not worth a child’s life or an adult for that matter if a person is incompetent enough not to be able to work a bolt action rifle perhaps they shouldn’t own or be allowed to have one.Bottom line semi auto long guns should be banned large capacity mags should be banned there is no earthly reason a civilian needs or has a right to own one all stop.background checks and training are logical correct and in keeping with the 2ond amendment all stop.it is what the VAST majority of the American people want all stop.if the legislators don’t support what the majority wants vote them out!stop the slaughter 

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.  

[onthedarkside]

12 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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.".

 

Yes I read it, so as confirmed no evidence of your claim that I quoted as the study was more focused on gun crime which I will remind you for the final time is not the topic.

 

The Koper study summary states:

10.2.3. Potential Consequences of Lifting the Ban

It is also possible, and perhaps probable, that new AWs and LCMs will eventually be used to commit mass murder. Mass murders garner much media attention, particularly when they involve AWs (Duwe, 2000). The notoriety likely to accompany mass murders if committed with AWs and LCMs, especially after these guns and magazines have been deregulated, could have a considerable negative impact on public perceptions, an effect that would almost certainly be intensified if such crimes were committed by terrorists operating in the U.S.

 

Here we have that period they are referring to.

 

Since the ban was lifted in 2004, gun massacres involving military-style weapons are way up.

 

We found that public mass shootings — which we defined as incidents in which a gunman killed at least six people in public — dropped during the decade of the federal ban. Yet, in the 15 years since the ban ended, the trajectory of gun massacres has been sharply upward, largely tracking the growth in ownership of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Using the Mother Jones mass shooting database, we identified the number of gun massacres over a 35-year period. (And following the F.B.I.’s approach, we excluded crimes of armed robbery and gang or domestic violence in evaluating public active shooter incidents.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/assault-weapon-ban.html

[it is what it is]

On 4/15/2023 at 3:29 AM, Kwasaki said:

I guess his sort of right but strict checks on gunshops selling guns and who is allowed a gun needs strict inforcement.

 

The gun lobby will always say bad people will still get guns and good people have a right to protect themselves from those people.

 

agree, he has a point. most countries in the world have guns, but don't have similar problems. it's the people buying/owning/using the guns and the authorities, who allow pretty much anyone to buy and own a gun, that are the problem.

 

we think things are pretty crazy in thailand sometimes, but they are not a patch on the usa, it's a scarily mad country, with some people who really should learn to control their temper.

[still kicking]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

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.  

We have laws where I live you have to have a fence around the pool no fence no pool 

[Tug]

4 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

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.  

You are mistaken 

[seajae]

7 hours ago, Tug said:

You are mistaken 

Here are the figures : The Weapons Most Commonly Used for Homicides in the United States

1. Handguns: 45.7%
2. Firearms (Type Unknown): 23.9%
3. Other Weapons: 11.4%
4. Knives or Cutting Instruments: 10.6%
5. Hands, Fists, Feet, Etc.: 4.3%
6. Rifles: 2.6%
7. Shotguns: 1.4%

How Often Are Assault Rifles Used in Homicides?

For how dangerous they are made out to be, assault rifles were not found to be used in homicides very often. Rifles were the weapon of choice in only 2.6% of the homicides that occurred in the United States in 2019, far lower than the 45.7% of homicides that were committed using a handgun. And even though nearly a quarter of homicides were committed using an unknown type of firearm, it’s safe to assume that handguns probably made up a large majority of that number as well. Even if a ban on assault weapons was enacted, it wouldn’t lower the number of assault rifles that are already in the United States, which is currently around the 20 million mark.

 

Personally I believe all those buying guns need to have checks done prior to allowing them to do so, this should be done when they apply for a licence before they are able to buy any gun, problem is a great majority of shootings are done with guns not purchased through a store with a licence or legally. Even in the mass shootings at schools the guns are usually owned by parents etc and were not locked up safely, laws on how guns are stored and who can own them should be the main focus, not taking them away from legal owners. I grew up on a farm so rifles(22's) were always a part of our lives, joined the army and had a marksman badge, kept shooting for many years after leaving, the problem is the people using them, mental problems, criminals/gangs, warped beliefs/political views etc

Edited April 18, 2023 by seajae

[bamnutsak]

Full speech...

 

 

[transam]

For those here protecting USA gun rights, read a couple of stories today, regarding fruitcakes with guns that you want to protect, here's one......

 

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/man-charged-murder-woman-shot-154651743.html

 

And there will be more today, and tomorrow, and the next day............