GmyyE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uninspired Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > The 25 deadliest mass shootings all occurred
> > before the assault weapon ban (3) and after
> it's
> > expiration (22)
> >
> >
>
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass
>
> > -shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
>
>
> This is ridiculous but worth addressing on that
> basis just to show how so and how such things
> typically are cherry-picked and manipulated to
> "prove" points within this argument. There are
> too many ways to shred this but just hitting some
> of the more significant:
>
> First, it's comparing what are relatively rare,
> random events to begin with over one 10-year
> period against a +50-year period outside of it.
> It also leaves off some at the early end and skews
> what's defined as mass shootings.
>
> Second, it's not even true as you've defined it.
> Columbine and the Atlanta shootings as examples
> both were within the time frame of the ban.
>
> Third, the ban did not remove any of the weapons
> or magazines which existed prior to. It simply
> prohibited manufacture of any new. You still
> could buy "pre-ban" products of which there were
> literally 100s of millions available. About the
> only thing that it really did at a practical level
> was to drive up the prices of pre-ban products.
>
> Fourth, it doesn't consider that such weapons
> weren't even used in the vast majority of cases
> and where "assault weapons" were present, they
> weren't the primary weapons employed to actually
> kill people, e.g., in the Holmes and Sandy Hook
> cases they jammed very early on and other weapons
> were used.
>
> Fifth, it doesn't consider that people can and do
> simply substitute some other weapons which are
> equally deadly, e.g., the Navy Yard shooter used a
> shotgun.
>
> Sixth, a number of those listed happened in places
> where there are State bans/restrictions on such
> weapons independent of the Federal ban.
>
> I could go on and on...
>
>
> >
> > Factcheck.org which does almost everything it
> can
> > to avoid taking sides on this issue in one
> > paragraph under the title "Did the 1994 Assault
> > Weapons Ban Work?"
> >
> > The final report concluded the ban’s success
> in
> > reducing crimes committed with banned guns was
> > “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault
> weapons
> > declined. However, that decline was “offset
> > throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or
> > rising use of other guns equipped with
> > [large-capacity magazines].”
>
>
> Yes, "mixed" as in there's no real evidence that
> it actually did anything. There are so few events
> involving "assault weapons" before, during, and
> after that it amounts to statistical noise. There
> are more events involving high-capacity magazines
> primarily because semi-automatic handguns have
> largely replaced revolvers. It has little to
> nothing to do the the actual magazine capacity
> itself.
>
>
> >
> > Please note equipped with "large capacity
> > magazines".
> >
> > None of the statistical manipulation provided
> to
> > muddy the situation matters to me. Crime and
> > deaths go up and down for a number of reasons
> on
> > both sides of the argument. What matters to me
> is
> > that assault weapons and large magazines create
> > havoc in deadly shooting incidents. Those are
> the
> > facts regardless of whether someone wants to
> throw
> > around statistics on unrelated issues.
> >
> > What I would like to see stopped is the ability
> to
> > destroy many families lives because someone is
> > mentally disturbed or feels disenfranchised.
> It
> > may not stop them from doing some harm with a
> > weapon, but it would stop wholesale murder in a
> > single incident.
>
> How so? Apparently it wouldn't necessarily
> because, as demonstrated by your own case, people
> are perfectly capable of killing lots of other
> people without the products that you want to ban.
>
>
>
> >
> > So, if you wish to show me something on this
> one
> > issue only, I will be willing to look at the
> facts
> > you wish to present. Don't muddy the waters
> with
> > other things.
>
>
> It's not muddying the waters, it's addressing the
> actual root causes for gun-related crimes and
> death. Which is required to understand who and
> what's actually involved and happening versus
> lumping things like suicide, criminal activity,
> and and accidents all together to make the numbers
> look higher and not making proper distinctions
> when then applying such numbers to related
> arguments around gun control.
I don't have time right now to get into more details, but you are muddying the waters on my original question, looking for someone who has something other to say than Ugh Ugh... you can't really say or you are cherry picking.
Here is a couple of things that should dispel most of what you are asserting.
These are middle of the road sources, not World Net Daily or Breitbart or NRA or some such nonsense and I did not include anything from sources like MSNBC or similar. These are news sources that don't get 100% right (I know of none that does), but are usually pretty correct when it is not an opinion piece.
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
This is over the last 30 years and has a nice graph showing a timeline from 1984 to Mid 2014 - about 40 mass shootings. Even though you cannot get away from violence completely in any period, you can see visually what has happened since the ban expired and the ever increasing rate of violence in the area of mass killings. If you want to get off the point that I asked... have you noticed how many companies are asking that all these people coming into restaurants and stores bearing these type of weapons I am talking about are banning them themselves. They scare families and keep people from frequenting their establishments. I do not remember such things happening until the NRA started this campaign that does not even want terrorist suspects to be banned from owning guns. All this rhetoric has emboldened a lot of bullies to intimate people with a different point of view rather than looking for solutions both sides could live with.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/weapons-and-mass-shootings/
This one has charted the guns used in mass shootings over the last 30 years and it is interesting if facts are truly what you are looking for rather than just wanting to banter about how much I don't know.
A relevant piece is - the guns that have been used in mass shootings are 22 shotguns, 23 revolvers, 29 rifles, & 77 semiautomatic handguns. Obviously, more than one can used in a given incident.
I beg to differ that I am skewing anything because I am backing it up with what I have read by middle of the road news sources. Personally, I want a compromise. I don't want to take away anyone's joy of hunting or feeling of protection by owning guns. As I suggested in an above post... If you want to own very dangerous things like this, you should register them and be responsible for them. Just like I am responsible if my dog bites someone. Responsible people who want these type of mass killing capable items should be responsible. If they don't lock them up in a safe and someone other than themselves get a hold of them and kills lot of people they should be responsible. My dogs are registered, my cars are registered, why should you get away with irresponsible ownership of a deadly weapon just because it is what you want when a lot of us think it is a bad idea to have willy nilly ownership of something that can do great harm? You want these things... own up to it and be a (I assume) man and take responsibility just the way I do when I decide to own a dog capable of hurting people or my car which is capable of running over someone.
I wasn't looking for an argument, I was looking for someone to give me another point of view that had merit. That is not what you provided. I am not even that vested in this other than I think it is wrong and should be addressed by people who know a lot more than I. But whenever I read about this stuff, it always sounds the same to me... urban death, suicides, crime, blah blah blah. What about the damn mass shootings? The are not urban death wink wink (according to people who respond like you have), the are not crime, and even if it ends in suicide it can hardly be categorized in the same way as a regular suicide. And since we have totally left the main question, what is with these IMO jerks who run around with big scary weapons in family friendly business. What is wrong with those people? Perhaps you have some insights on what insecurities someone has that they have to go around scaring people and acting all tough? It is not tough... it is just sad.